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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claims 4 and 5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 4 and 5, should have “further comprising” rather than just “comprising” to indicate additional parts rather than a possible change in scope.
Appropriate correction is required.
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: “portion” in claims 1, 2, and 4-6 each linked to a function.
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 § 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(s) 1 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Mikashima (US 20200247114 A1), and further in view of Adachi et al. (US 20220088919 A1), hereinafter referred to as Adachi.
Regarding claims 1 and 6, Mikashima teaches an image forming apparatus (printer 100; Fig. 1) and method of using the image forming apparatus (via image controller 70; Fig. 6), comprising:
an image forming portion (recording part 9 with recording heads 17; Fig. 2, 3) which forms an image on a sheet conveyed along a predetermined conveying path (sheet P is transported in conveyance direction X while an image is recorded on it; at para. 0032; Fig. 2);
an image pickup portion (sensor unit 51 with CIS 60; Fig. 5) which is provided while being elongated along a width direction orthogonal to a conveying direction of the sheet at a position more on an upstream side of the conveying direction than the image forming portion on the conveying path, and images the sheet (sensor unit 51 is elongated in widthwise direction to detect end positions of the sheet P and is upstream to recording part 9; at para. 0007, 0029; Fig. 1, 13);
a conveyance processing portion (belt conveyance part 5; Fig. 3, 5) which conveys a predetermined specific sheet along the conveying path (direction X; Fig. 5), performing a conveyance step;
an acquisition processing portion (CIS data holding part 74a; Fig. 6) which acquires shape data (shaded image data) indicating a shape of the specific sheet conveyed by the conveyance processing portion using the image pickup portion (sheet P is read by CIS 60 to acquire shaded image data; at para. 0067), performing an acquisition step;
a mask processing portion (image mask part 75b; Fig. 6) which masks, using the shape data acquired by the acquisition processing portion, a stick-out area that sticks out from a sheet area included in the shape data out of specific image data whose size in a first direction [corresponding to the conveying direction] is larger than that of the sheet area ( “image mask part 75b cuts portions of a print image overlapping with outer areas of the sheet …”; at para. 0049; Fig. 6, 14; “reference image Im having an image width A′ larger than the width L of the sheet P”; at para. 0072), performing a mask step; and
a forming processing portion (image generation section 75; Fig. 6) which forms, on the specific sheet, an image (at para. 0049-50) that shows a boundary between a mask area and a non-mask area opposing each other along the first direction out of the specific image data in which the stick-out area has been masked by the mask processing portion (Fig. 14 annotated), performing a forming step.
PNG
media_image1.png
283
459
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Mikashima does not explicitly teach wherein the specific image data is larger than that of the sheet area in a first direction wherein the first direction corresponds to the conveying direction.
Adachi teaches an image forming apparatus (recording system 1; Fig. 1) comprising a mask processing portion (control unit 24; Fig. 2) which masks (Fig. 4, 5, 7) a stick-out area (S2; Fig. 4) that sticks out from a sheet area (S, S1) included in the shape data out of specific image data (image G, DG) whose size in a first direction corresponding to the conveying direction (T) is larger than that of the sheet area (image DG is larger than region S1; Fig. 4, 5, 7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus/method of Mikashima by including masking in a first direction that corresponds to the conveying direction as taught by Adachi for the purpose of maintaining a clear boundary for a region without image formation for cleaner post-processing, such as hole punching, as taught by Adachi (at para. 0024).
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Mikashima as modified by Adachi teaches the image forming apparatus according to claim 1, and Mikashima further teaches wherein
the mask processing portion determines, as the stick-out area, an outer side of an area of the specific image data that overlaps with the sheet area (Fig. 14 annotated for claim 1) in a case where the shape data is superimposed on the specific image data such that a first reference position in the specific image data and a second reference position in the shape data match (working area for printing image data is calculated based on positioning (skew angle and widthwise difference) of the sheet so their centers match when printing; at para. 0053), and
the specific image data includes a colored area (reference image Im, demonstrated as colored (not white) in Fig. 14) arranged at a position that overlaps with end portions of the sheet area (at para. 0072), and demonstrates this process for the edges in a widthwise direction, intersecting the first direction (Fig. 14).
However, Mikashima does not explicitly teach wherein the specific image data includes a colored area arranged at a position that overlaps with an end portion of the sheet area on a side of a second direction provided along the first direction, specifically wherein the second direction is a direction opposite to the first direction.
Adachi teaches an image forming apparatus (recording system 1; Fig. 1) wherein specific image data (image G, DG) includes a colored area arranged at a position that overlaps with an end portion (boundary of regions S1, S2; Fig. 4) of the sheet area (S1) on a side of a second direction provided along the first direction (image G, DG overlaps with total region S including the boundary of regions S1, S2; Fig. 4, 5, 7), specifically wherein the second direction is a direction opposite to the first direction (region S2 is an end portion in a direction opposite to transport direction T; Fig. 4, 7), and a mask processing portion (control unit 24; Fig. 2) may mask or trim the specific image data beyond end portion (region S2; at para. 0134; Fig. 7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Mikashima by further specifying that the specific image data includes a colored area arranged at a position that overlaps with an end portion of the sheet area on a side of a second direction provided along the first direction wherein the second direction is a direction opposite to the first direction as taught by Adachi for the purpose of maintaining a clear boundary for a region without image formation for cleaner post-processing, such as hole punching, as taught by Adachi (at para. 0024).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mikashima in view of Adachi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of van Bekkem (US 20250229522 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Mikashima as modified by Adachi teaches the image forming apparatus according to claim 1, however Mikashima does not teach the image forming apparatus further comprising: a reading processing portion which reads the image formed on the specific sheet by the forming processing portion; a detection processing portion which detects a tilt amount of the image pickup portion with respect to the width direction based on the image read by the reading processing portion
van Bekkem teaches an image forming apparatus (image-forming device 100, 200; Fig. 1, 2) with an image forming portion (printheads 2; Fig. 1, 2) and an image pickup portion (sensor unit 1; Fig. 1, 2; sensor unit 1 is understood as able to be an image pickup portion based on the possible upstream positioning with respect to the printheads 2 in the conveyance direction y, therefore it would be able to read the sheet before it has an image formed on it; Fig. 2), and further comprising:
a reading processing portion (also sensor unit 1 can further read a printed image; at para. 0115) the image formed on the specific sheet by a forming processing portion (images with dots/rows b are acquired wherein their angles may be skewed depending on tilt of sensor unit 1 and/or printheads 2 with nozzle rows a; at para. 0161-0166; Fig. 6A-7); and
a detection processing portion (data-processing module 32 of controller unit 3; at para. 0121; Fig. 1, 2) which detects a tilt amount of an image pickup portion (angle Rz of sensor unit 1; Fig. 3, 6C, 6D) and/or image forming portion (angle β of printheads 2; Fig. 6B, 6D) with respect to the width direction based on the image read by the reading processing portion.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the apparatus as taught by Mikashima in view of Adachi to further have a reading processing portion and a detection processing portion to read and detect a tilt angle for a component, such as the image pickup portion, for the purpose of improving image quality and print accuracy due to misalignment of components that would otherwise cause a skewed image, as taught by van Bekkem (at para. 0073, 0138 ).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mikashima in view of Adachi and van Bekkem as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Mori (US 20240408906 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Mikashima as modified by Adachi and van Bekkem teaches the image forming apparatus according to claim 4, and van Bekkem teaches the image forming apparatus further comprising an adjustment processing portion (calibration module 33 of controller unit 3; at para. 0121; Fig. 1, 2) which adjusts ejection calibration based on the tilt amount detected by the detection processing portion (at para. 0120, 0157, 0179). However, van Bekkem does not teach wherein the adjustment processing portion which adjusts an attitude of the image pickup portion based on the tilt amount detected by the detection processing portion.
Mori teaches an image forming apparatus (inkjet recording apparatus 100; Fig. 1) with a detection processing portion (calculating unit 1505, 1603 of correcting unit 1404; at para. 0089; Fig. 14, 15) which detects a tilt amount (deviation angle/tilt/misalignment θ1, θ2) of a component with respect to the width direction based on the image read by the reading processing portion (at para. 0064, 0069, 0071; angles θ in Fig. 9-13); and
an adjustment processing portion (head control unit 1430 with motor M3; at para. 0090; Fig. 14) which adjusts an attitude of the component based on the tilt amount detected by the detection processing portion (tilt of the component may be corrected using a motor of the like; at para. 0084).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the apparatus as taught by Mikashima in view of Adachi and van Bekkem to further include an adjustment processing portion that adjusts the attitude of a component for the purpose of improving image quality and print accuracy due to misalignment of another part that would otherwise cause a skewed image, as taught by Mori (at para. 0076, 0134).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Inaba et al. (US 20190030913 A1, from IDS) describes an image forming apparatus (Fig. 1) wherein an inclination correction process (Fig. 5) may be performed, possibly relevant to claims 4 and 5.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYRA M VAN KREUNINGEN whose telephone number is (571)272-9423. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur 9:00am-6:00pm and Fri 9:00am-1:00pm.
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, DOUGLAS X RODRIGUEZ can be reached at (571) 431-0716. 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.
29 July 2026
/KYRA MELOR VAN KREUNINGEN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2853
/DOUGLAS X RODRIGUEZ/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights