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 .
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.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka et al. (US PG Pub 2021/0216027).
For claims 1, 13 and 14: Tanaka et al. teaches a charge-eliminating apparatus (see Fig. 4) comprising a charge-eliminating member 100, 101, 102 configured to eliminate charge of a sheet S in contact with the sheet (see Fig. 4, at least via rollers 111, 112); a voltage applying unit 132, 115 configured to apply a voltage to the charge-eliminating member 111, 112; a setting unit configured to set a value of the voltage applied to the charge-eliminating member 111, 112 by the voltage applying unit 115; a controller 130 capable of executing a changing process in which a frequency of the discharge voltage to be output by the voltage applying unit is changed from the voltage set by the setting unit during execution of a charge-eliminating operation in which the charge of a plurality of the sheets is continuously eliminated by the charge-eliminating member (see paragraphs 64 and 65); and a first mode in which the changing process is performed during the execution of the charge-eliminating operation (see paragraph 64, at least a mode in which a transport speed of the medium changes and thus the frequency f of the discharge voltage is changed by the controller in accordance) or a second mode in which the changing process is not performed during the execution of the charge- eliminating operation and the voltage is output by the voltage applying unit based on the value set by the setting unit (see paragraph 64, static elimination parameters used in a fixed manner as an alternative mode). Tanaka et al. does not explicitly teach that the voltage applying unit controls the voltage nor does it explicitly teach that the selecting unit is configured to select between a fixed control mode and the variable speed mode as described. However, Tanaka et al. teaches in a cited reference changing the static elimination voltage according to changes in the transport speed to change the static eliminating current flowing to the medium (see paragraph 6), and also teaches a mode selection switch for selecting between various types of modes (see paragraph 94). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Tanaka et al. to utilize a change in voltage to accommodate for differences in the desired static elimination current to eliminate static from different mediums and mediums moving at different speeds, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the mode selection switch to enable toggling from a static constant speed mode to a variable speed mode as it provide additional options for the operator.
For claim 3: Tanaka et al. teaches the charge eliminating apparatus of claim 1 and teaches that the selecting unit selects the first or second mode based on a type of the sheet (see Fig. 8, physical property of medium and deciding scheme).
For claim 4: Tanaka et al. teaches the charge eliminating apparatus of claim 1, comprising an environment detecting unit 145 configured to detect an environment condition of an environment where the charge-eliminating apparatus is installed, wherein the selecting unit 142 selects either the first mode or the second mode based on a detecting result of the environment detecting unit (see paragraph 112). T switch 142 from Tanaka et al. can be manually operated to select the first or second mode based on a detected result from the environment detecting unit.
For claim 7: Tanaka et al. teaches the charge-eliminating apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising an environment detecting unit 145 configured to detect an environment condition of an environment where the charge-eliminating apparatus is installed (see Fig. 4), wherein in the changing process, the controller changes the value of the voltage to be output by the voltage applying unit based on a detecting result of the environment detecting unit during the execution of the charge-eliminating operation (see paragraph 112).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka et al. (US PG Pub 2021/0216027) in view of Okamoto (US PG Pub 2019/0332047).
For claim 2: Tanaka et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 2 except the selecting unit is a display unit configured to display a screen for a user to select either the first mode or the second mode. However, Okamoto teaches utilizing a touch screen to service as an input to a printing system including a static eliminator (see paragraphs 25 and 28). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the selecting unit of Tanaka et al. to provide it as a display screen for a user to select the modes as taught by Okamoto for the purpose of providing an informational display and input device.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka et al. (US PG Pub 2021/0216027) in view of Shida (US PG Pub 2023/0168617).
For claim 5: Tanaka et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 5 except comprising a detecting unit configured to detect a voltage applied to the charge-eliminating member or a current flowing through the charge-eliminating member, wherein the selecting unit selects either the first mode or the second mode based on a detecting result of the detecting unit. However, Shida teaches a detecting unit configured to detect a voltage applied to the charge-eliminating member or a current flowing through the charge-eliminating member (see claim 5 of Shida). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to provide a detector for detecting the voltage as taught by Shida for the purpose of informing decisions with a measured voltage. In combination, the switch 142 from Tanaka et al. can be manually operated to select the first or second mode based on a detecting result of the detecting unit.
For claim 6: Tanaka et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 6 except a current detecting unit configured to detect a current flowing through the charge- eliminating member, wherein in the changing process, the controller changes the voltage to be output by the voltage applying unit based on a detecting result of the current detecting unit when the sheet passes through the charge-eliminating member. However, Shida teaches a detecting unit configured to detect a voltage applied to the charge eliminating member or a current flowing through the charge-eliminating member (see claim 7 of Shida) and the controller changes the voltage to be output by the voltage applying unit based on a detecting result of the current detecting unit when the sheet passes through the charge-eliminating member (see claim 7 of Shida). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Tanaka et al. by providing a detecting unit to detect the current in the charge-eliminating member as taught by Shida for the purpose of controlling the voltage of the charge member based on its detected voltage.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka et al. (US PG Pub 2021/0216027) in view of Nagamoto (US PG Pub 2021/0389690).
For claim 8: Tanaka et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 8 except that in the changing process, the controller changes the value of the voltage to be output by the voltage applying unit based on a number of sheets conveyed during the execution of the charge-eliminating operation. However, Nagatomo teaches that, in the changing process, the controller changes the value of the voltage to be output by the voltage applying unit based on a number of sheets conveyed during the execution of the charge-eliminating operation (see paragraph 55, changing the voltage value based on the number of sheets). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to adjust the voltage based on the number of sheets as taught by Nagatomo for the purpose of accommodating for residual charge when the number of sheets changes.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: None of the prior art of record or any obvious combination thereof teaches a charge eliminating apparatus having a controller executing a changing process and a selecting unit configured to select between a first mode with the changing process and a second mode without the changing process wherein further an inputting unit is configured to a user to input the value of the voltage applied as required in claims 9-11, or a prompt for the user to reset the voltage as required in claim 12.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID H BANH whose telephone number is (571)270-3851. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 12-8PM.
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 Meier can be reached at (571)272-2149. 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.
/DAVID H BANH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853