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 § 102
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.
Claims 1-4, 6, 7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sakuma et al. (US PG Pub 2015/0001782).
For claim 1: Sakuma et al. teaches an image formation device (see Fig. 1) comprising: an image forming unit 22 comprising a photosensitive drum 24, a developing roller configured to feed toner (see paragraph 26, developing device) onto the photosensitive drum 24, a transfer unit 26 configured to transfer, to a print medium P (see paragraph 27), the toner fed onto the photosensitive drum (see paragraph 27), and a fixing unit 30 configured to fix the toner transferred to the print medium P onto the print medium (see paragraph 27); a processing unit 44 provided downstream of the fixing unit 30 in a conveyance direction of the print medium, the processing unit 44 being configured to perform processing for cutting the print medium P (see paragraph 30); and a controller configured to execute a double-sided printing of causing the image forming unit 22 to perform printing on both sides of the print medium P (see paragraph 28), wherein the controller is configured to execute a processing process of causing the processing unit to perform the processing for cutting the print medium after executing the double-sided printing process (paragraph 82, each processing is controlled by the control unit, including duplex printing, and cutting, cutting occurring downstream of the duplex printing, see Fig. 1, see Fig. 10, control system for each of the components).
For claim 2: Sakuma et al. teaches the image formation device according to claim 1, wherein the double-sided printing process comprises: a first image forming process of causing the image forming unit to form an image on one side of the print medium; and a second image forming process of causing the image forming unit to form an image on another side of the print medium after the first image forming process (see Fig. 1, paragraph 28, routine operation of the device as seen in Fig. 1, a first process would form an image on one side of the print medium and a second process after passing through the path 38 would form an image on the opposite of the sheet).
For claim 3: Sakuma et al. teaches the image formation device according to claim 1 wherein the processing unit is configured to cut the print medium (see Fig. 1, paragraph 30, cutting units 44, 44 cut the print medium P at the location in Fig. 1), and wherein the processing process is a process of causing the processing unit to cut the print medium into a first print medium and a second print medium that are arranged on a forward side and a backward side in the conveyance direction (see Fig. 1, upon cutting with device 44, a forward portion will be oriented downstream of the rollers 44 and a backward side will be located upstream of rollers 44).
For claim 4: Sakuma et al. teaches the image formation device according to claim 2, further comprising: a body housing 14 comprising a first discharging portion 55 configured to discharge the print medium that passed through the fixing unit 30 (see Fig. 1, the sheets reaching discharging portion 55 have all passed fixing unit 30 at least once and twice if duplexing is performed); a first conveyance path 40 configured to convey the print medium that passed through the fixing unit 30 toward the first discharging portion 55; and a second conveyance path 38 that is different from the first conveyance path 40, the second conveyance path 38 being configured to re-convey the print medium P that passed through the fixing unit 30 toward the photosensitive drum 22, 24 after the first image forming process (see Fig. 1).
For claim 6: Sakuma et al. teaches the image formation device according to claim 4, further comprising: a third conveyance path 40b (see Fig. 2) configured to convey the print medium P that passed through the fixing unit 30 toward the processing unit 44, 44, the third conveyance path 40b being different from the first conveyance path 40, 41a, wherein the processing unit 44, 44 is provided in the third conveyance path 40b (as seen in Fig. 2).
For claim 7: Sakuma et al. teaches the image formation device according to claim 4, wherein the processing unit 44, 44 is provided in the first conveyance path (see Figs. 1 and 2, for the purpose of claim 7, the first conveyance path can be considered 40, 40b).
For claim 10: Sakuma et al. teaches the image forming device of claim 2 further comprising a main motor configured to drive the photosensitive drum, the developing roller, the transfer unit, or the fixing unit (see Fig. 1, the device of Fig. 1 inherently comprises a motor to drive each of the components, at least one motor to drive at least one of the components).
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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakuma et al. (US PG Pub 2015/0001782) in view of Miura et al. (US PG Pub 2021/0245525).
For claim 5: Sakuma et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 5 except a discharge roller configured to convey the print medium that passed through the fixing unit toward the first discharging portion, wherein the controller is configured to execute a reverse conveyance process of causing, after the first image forming process and before the second image forming process, the discharge roller to switching back the print medium from the first conveyance path and conveying the print medium to the second conveyance path. However, Miura et al. teaches a printing system having a printing device having a discharge roller 64 (see Fig. 2, the roller 64 is a discharging roller near the discharge port and tray) configured to convey the print medium P toward the first discharging portion 22, wherein the controller 10 is configured to execute a reverse conveyance process of causing, after the first image forming process and before the second image forming process (see paragraphs 34 and 35), the discharge roller 64, 65 to switching back the print medium from the first conveyance path R1 and conveying the print medium to the second conveyance path R2 (see Fig. 2, routine operation).
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 Sakuma et al. to provide a roller in the discharging path of the sheet to function as a reversing roller as taught by Miura et al. as a well-known structure and simpler structure for refeeding a sheet.
Claim 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakuma et al. (US PG Pub 2015/0001782) in view of Sakaguchi (US PG Pub 2021/0362520).
For claim 11: Sakuma et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 11 except that the processing unit comprises: a cutting blade, a carriage configured to hold the cutting blade, the carriage being movable in a predetermined direction, and a carriage motor configured to drive the carriage, the carriage motor being different from the main motor. However, Sakaguchi teaches a processing unit comprising a cutting blade 222, a carriage 224 configured to hold the blade 222 and a carriage motor 226 configured to drive the carriage 224, the carriage 224 being movable in a predetermined direction, and the carriage motor 226 configured to drive the carriage 224 (see paragraphs 69-75), the carriage motor being different from the main motor 160, 162 (see Fig. 1). 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 Sakuma et al. to utilize a vertical blade in a carriage with a separate motor as taught by Sakaguchi for the purpose of more precisely controlling the cutting and cutting position.
For claim 12: The combination of Sakuma et al. and Sakaguchi teaches the image formation device according to claim 11 and Sakaguchi teaches wherein in a case where the processing process is executed, the controller is configured to drive the carriage motor after stopping the main motor (see Fig. 1, in routine operation, the paper 120 would not be advanced in the conveyance direction by the main motor during the cutting by the carriage and the carriage motor).
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakuma et al. (US PG Pub 2015/0001782) in view of Okawa et al. (US PG Pub 2021/0405572).
For claim 13: Sakuma et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 13 except that it is silent as to the image forming unit further comprises an exposure unit configured to expose the photosensitive drum, and wherein the exposure unit comprises: a polygon mirror configured to irradiate the photosensitive drum with a predetermined light beam; and a polygon motor different from the main motor, the polygon motor being configured to rotationally drive the polygon mirror. However, Okawa et al. teaches an exposure unit (see paragraph 24, laser oscillator) configured to expose the photosensitive drum 11, and wherein the exposure unit comprises: a polygon mirror (see paragraph 24, polygon mirror) configured to irradiate the photosensitive drum with a predetermined light beam; and a polygon motor (see paragraph 24, scanner motor that rotates the polygon mirror) different from the main motor, the polygon motor being configured to rotationally drive the polygon mirror (see paragraph 24). 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 Sakuma et al. to provide the system with an exposure unit having a polygon mirror and motor as taught by Okawa et al. for the purpose of developing an desired image on the drum to transfer the image to a substrate.
For claim 14: The combination of Sakuma et al. and Okawa et al. teaches the image formation device according to claim 13. The limitations “wherein in a case where a printing job for a plurality of print media is received, and in a case where the processing process for a first one of the plurality of print media is executed, the controller is configured to drive the polygon motor in a case where the first image forming process is performed on a second one of the plurality of print media by the image forming unit” occurs in routine operation of the device when printing occurs on multiple sheets.
For claim 15: The combination of Sakuma et al. and Okawa et al. teaches the image formation device according to claim 13. The limitation “wherein in a case where a printing job for the plurality of print media is received, and in a case where the processing process for the first one of the plurality of print media is executed, the controller is configured to stop the polygon motor in a case where the first image forming process is not performed on the second one of the plurality of print media by the image forming unit” occurs in routine operation when image forming is not desired on a second one of the plurality of print media.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8, 9, 16 and 17 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: Regarding claim 8, none of the prior art of record or any obvious combination thereof teaches the body housing having a front and rear cover, the rear cover for a second discharging portion, being different from the first discharging portion wherein the controller is configured to execute the first image forming process, the second image forming process and the processing process in a case where the front cover closes the opening and the rear cover closes the second discharging portion.
Regarding claim 9, none of the prior art of record or any obvious combination thereof teaches the image forming device having a detection unit which is configured to detect the length of the print medium and cause the first, second and processing process to occur in a case where the length of the print medium detected by the detection process is longer than a predetermined length.
Regarding claim 16, none of the prior art of record or any obvious combination thereof teaches the image formation device of claim 1 wherein the fixing unit is configured to stop the heater of the fixing unit in a case where the processing process is executed.
Regarding claim 17, none of the prior art of record or any obvious combination thereof teaches the image formation device of claim 5 which performs, in a case where print data of 4N+1 pages with processing process not executed on a last page, a third image forming process causing the image forming unit to form an image of the last page of either surface of the print medium and not execute the reverse conveyance process.
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