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 title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it merely consists of a single run-on sentence without regard to proper grammatical form. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Interpretation
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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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: “developing mechanism” in claim 1.
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(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.
Claims 1-7 are 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.
In claim 1, line 16-20, the phrase “is calculated from the image data and the sheet print rate” is indefinite because it is unclear from the clause, in its entirety, to what subject/concept the verb phrase “is calculated” is referring back (i.e. the first cumulative print rate, the sheet print rate, the ratio, or the area of the toner image formed). As a result, it is unclear what is calculated from the image data and the sheet print rate.
In claim 1, lines 25-28, the phrase “executes, …, first processing of performing only the image quality adjusting processing in a first period, which is a period until the first cumulative print rate exceeds a predetermined first reference value and the first image quality adjusting processing is performed” is indefinite as it is unclear how the ‘image quality adjusting processing’ can be performed in the first period when it appears as though the performing of the processing defines the end point of the period.
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 1, and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hama et al. (US Pub.2005/0185973), Embodiment 4, in view of Hama et al. (US Pub.2005/0185973), Embodiment 1.
Regarding claim 1, Hama et al. (US Pub.2005/0185973), embodiment 4, teach an image forming device (fig.1) that forms an image on a sheet, the image forming device comprising: a toner container housing a toner inside (fig.1, #4Y-#4K); a developing mechanism that forms a toner image on a surface of an image carrier using the toner supplied from the toner container (fig.1, #44 forming on #22); a developing power supply that supplies the developing mechanism with a developing bias (fig.2, #101 to ‘OTHER UNITS’; ex.fig.20, #S34; para.0100,0156,0159&0194), which is a predetermined voltage; an image sensor that detects an image density of the toner image (fig.1&3, #60); and a controller (fig.2, #11) that can execute image forming processing of forming the toner image on the surface of the image carrier based on image data that is electronic data of the image formed on the sheet (para.0158&0167) and image quality adjusting processing of forming an image quality adjusting toner image, which is a predetermined toner image, on the surface of the image carrier and adjusting a value of the developing bias based on image density information detected by the image sensor (para.0155-0162&0274-0280), and a remaining amount determining processor that determines whether the toner remains in the toner container based on image density information of the image quality adjusting toner image detected by the image sensor when the image quality adjusting processing is performed (para.0285); and executes, at a first interval, which is a predetermined interval, first processing of performing only the image quality adjusting processing in a first period (fig.25; para.0274-0285).
Regarding claim 6, Hama et al. (US Pub.2005/0185973), embodiment 4, teach an image forming device wherein the remaining amount determining processor determines that the toner is not in the toner container in a case where the image density detected by the image sensor of the image quality adjusting toner image that is formed does not reach a target density even by changing the value of the developing bias and forming the image quality adjusting toner image during the image quality adjusting processing (para.0282&0285).
Regarding claim 7, Hama et al. (US Pub.2005/0185973), embodiment 4, teach an image forming device wherein the image forming device further includes a display, and the controller displays, on the display, a message indicating that the toner container is empty in a case where the remaining amount determining processor determines that the toner does not remain in the toner container (para.0280&0291).
Hama et al. (US Pub.2005/0185973), embodiment 4, also allows for judging an abnormally low state prior to getting to that point by density alone, and that this would appropriately lead to the same result (para.0290).
However, Hama et al. (US Pub.2005/0185973), embodiment 4, fail to teach what that alternate early judgement would be and thus does not teach a first cumulative print rate calculator that calculates a first cumulative print rate obtained by adding and cumulating a sheet print rate, which is a ratio between an area of the toner image formed during the image forming processing and an area of the sheet, is calculated from the image data and the sheet print rate obtained each time the image forming processing is performed.
Regarding claim 1, Hama et al. (US Pub.2005/0185973), embodiment 1, teach an image forming device (fig.1) that forms an image on a sheet, the image forming device comprising: a toner container housing a toner inside (fig.1, #4Y-#4K); a developing mechanism that forms a toner image on a surface of an image carrier using the toner supplied from the toner container (fig.1, #44 forming on #22); a developing power supply that supplies the developing mechanism with a developing bias (fig.2, #101 to ‘OTHER UNITS’; ex.fig.20, #S34; para.0100,0156,0159&0194), which is a predetermined voltage; an image sensor that detects an image density of the toner image (fig.1&3, #60); and a controller (fig.2, #11) that can execute image forming processing of forming the toner image on the surface of the image carrier based on image data that is electronic data of the image formed on the sheet (para.0158&0167) and image quality adjusting processing of forming an image quality adjusting toner image, which is a predetermined toner image, on the surface of the image carrier and adjusting a value of the developing bias based on image density information detected by the image sensor (para.0155-0162&0194-0198), wherein the controller includes a first cumulative print rate calculator that calculates a first cumulative print rate obtained by adding and cumulating a sheet print rate, which is a ratio between an area of the toner image formed during the image forming processing and an area of the sheet, is calculated from the image data and the sheet print rate obtained each time the image forming processing is performed (para.0142) and a remaining amount determining processor that determines whether the toner remains in the toner container based on image density information of the image quality adjusting toner image detected by the image sensor when the image quality adjusting processing is performed (para.0155-0156), executes, at a first interval, which is a predetermined interval, which is a period until the first cumulative print rate exceeds a predetermined first reference value (para.0137-0142: level (1)) and the first image quality adjusting processing is performed (para.0155-0156), and performs the image quality adjusting processing at a second interval shorter than the first interval and executes second processing of performing determining processing by using the remaining amount determining processor in a second period, which is a period after a time point at which the image quality adjusting processing is executed first time after the first cumulative print rate exceeds the first reference value (para.0137-0142: level (2) or (3), since interval until (1) is most of the use-life of the cartridge, the interval to (2) or (3) will be shorter).
Regarding claim 6, Hama et al. (US Pub.2005/0185973), embodiment 1, teach an image forming device wherein the remaining amount determining processor determines that the toner is not in the toner container in a case where the image density detected by the image sensor of the image quality adjusting toner image that is formed does not reach a target density even by changing the value of the developing bias and forming the image quality adjusting toner image during the image quality adjusting processing (para.0138-0139,0156,&0159-0162).
Regarding claim 7, Hama et al. (US Pub.2005/0185973), embodiment 1, teach an image forming device wherein the image forming device further includes a display, and the controller displays, on the display, a message indicating that the toner container is empty in a case where the remaining amount determining processor determines that the toner does not remain in the toner container (para.0126,0137-0139&0176).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the near-end of toner evaluation of Hama et al. (US Pub.2005/0185973), embodiment 4, by including the combined cumulative count and density detection evaluation as in Hama et al. (US Pub.2005/0185973), embodiment 1, because Embodiment 4 allows for judging an abnormally low state prior to getting to that point by density alone by combining with or using other methods because it would appropriately lead to the same result (para.0290) and because Embodiment 1 sets forth that a near-end warning gives a user more flexibility (para.0138) and combining the two evaluation methods allows for better control and stabilization of image density (para.0155-0156).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hama et al. (US Pub.2005/0185973), Embodiment 4, in view of Hama et al. (US Pub.2005/0185973), Embodiment 1, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yoshizuka et al. (US Pub.2006/0008285).
Hama et al. (US Pub.2005/0185973), Embodiment 4, in view of Hama et al. (US Pub.2005/0185973), Embodiment 1, teach all of the limitations of claim 1, upon which claim 3 depends.
Regarding claim 3, Hama et al. (US Pub.2005/0185973), Embodiment 1, teach an image forming device wherein the controller further includes a second cumulative print rate calculator that calculates a second cumulative print rate obtained by adding and cumulating the sheet print rate of the image newly formed in the image forming processing after the image quality adjusting processing is performed in the second period each time the image forming processing is performed (para.0137-0142: level (2)).
However, while Hama et al. (US Pub.2005/0185973) does have some allowance for determining if another print job exists and either prohibiting image formation or allowing for single page formation (para.0139); Hama et al. (US Pub.2005/0185973) does not explicitly teach determining whether to perform the second processing based on results of the second cumulative print rate calculator when in a state where image data is not present.
Regarding claim 3, Yoshizuka et al. (US Pub.2006/0008285) teach an image forming device that is substantially similar to that of Hama et al. (US Pub.2005/0185973) (see fig.1) which includes a continuation determiner that determines whether a state is a first state where next image data that is the image data to perform next image forming processing is present (fig.4, #S10->YES) or a second state where the next image data is not present during the image forming processing in the second period (fig.4, #S10->NO) and determines whether to perform the second processing based on results of the second cumulative count and the continuation determiner in the second period (fig.4, #S32->YES/NO ->#S34).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the patch adjustment performing period of Hama et al. (US Pub.2005/0185973) to incorporate only performing the patch adjustment when no image is present as in Yoshizuka et al. (US Pub.2006/0008285) in order to perform calibration by means of a pattern of patches without reducing apparatus throughput (para.0002).
Allowable Subject Matter
Though no art rejection has been presented for claims 2 and 4-5, the office cannot positively identify possible allowable subject matter because the necessary amendments to claim 1 to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C.112(b) may significantly change the scope or intent of claims 2 and 4-5.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURA K ROTH whose telephone number is (571)272-2154. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30AM-3:30 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.
/LKR/
3/3/2026
/STEPHANIE E BLOSS/ Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852