Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 19/056,340

IMAGE FORMING SYSTEM

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Feb 18, 2025
Examiner
ELEY, JESSICA L
Art Unit
2852
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Canon Kabushiki Kaisha
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
83%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 2m
To Grant
89%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 83% — above average
83%
Career Allow Rate
637 granted / 765 resolved
+15.3% vs TC avg
Moderate +6% lift
Without
With
+5.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 2m
Avg Prosecution
30 currently pending
Career history
795
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.8%
-39.2% vs TC avg
§103
50.4%
+10.4% vs TC avg
§102
41.2%
+1.2% vs TC avg
§112
4.3%
-35.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 765 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 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. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. Claim(s) 2-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawai US 2016/0112602 A1 (Kawai) and Ogino et al. US 2020/0324990 A1 (Ogino). Regarding claims 2, 8 and 9, Kawai teaches an image forming system comprising: an image forming apparatus (1); a display unit (500) capable of displaying information (¶0061); the image forming apparatus including: an image forming unit configured to perform an image forming operation for forming an image on a recording material during an image forming period (¶0027); a sound collector (Ma-Me) configured to receive a sound (¶0059); a plurality of motors including a first motor and a second motor (two of groups A-E) and configured to drive the image forming unit (1); a control unit (10) configured to implement, in a case where a predetermined condition is satisfied (i.e., the trouble occurrence operation mode), an individual drive mode in which only the first motor (E) among the plurality of motors operations during a first period different from the image forming period (¶0111), Kawai differs from the instant claimed invention by not explicitly disclosing: one or more servers wherein the one or more servers (¶0160-¶0162) are configured to notify the display unit to cause the display unit to display information relating to a component causing an abnormal sounds on a basis of the sound received by the sound collector during the first period in which the individual drive mode has been implemented (¶0107-¶0111). However, this is a known alternative. Ogino teaches the image forming system the plurality of drive units (206, 519, 520), the sound detection unit (microphone 70), and the control unit (203), and wherein the server apparatuses is configured to perform the identification operation (¶0052-¶0053). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use the alternative configuration taught by Ogino where the server is used to perform the identification information instead of doing that on the device taught by Kawai, since the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing. Regarding claims 3 and 10, Kawai teaches the image forming system according to claims 2 and 9, wherein, in a case where the predetermined condition is not satisfied (not every 100 pages), the first motor and the second motor are configured to not operate in the first period (i.e., the noise level is so high that it requires the part to stop (FIG. 8). Regarding claims 4 and 11, Kawai teaches the image forming system according to claims 3 and 10, wherein the first period is a period following the image forming period (¶0139). Regarding claims 5 and 12, Kawai teaches the image forming system according to claims 4 and 11, wherein the predetermined condition is a condition based on the number of sheets printed by the image forming apparatus (every 100, ¶0112). Regarding claims 6 and 13, Kawai teaches the image forming system according to claims 2 and 9, wherein the individual drive mode is configured to be implemented each time the image forming apparatus prints a predetermined number of sheets (every 100, ¶0112). Regarding claims 7 and 14, Kawai teaches the image forming system according to claims 2 and 9, the image forming system according to wherein the individual drive mode is a first individual drive mode (s109), and an individual drive mode in which only the second motor is driven among the plurality of motors during the first period is a second individual drive mode (s111-s112), and wherein, in a case where the predetermined condition is satisfied after the first individual drive mode has been implemented, the second individual drive mode (YES to s115) is configured to be implemented (FIG. 11B). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA L ELEY whose telephone number is (571)272-9793. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM CST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Walter Jr. Lindsay can be reached on (571)272-1674. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /JESSICA L ELEY/ Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 18, 2025
Application Filed
May 20, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 21, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12591200
DRIVING FORCE RECEIVING MEMBER AND PROCESS CARTRIDGE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12585216
IMAGE HEATING DEVICE AND IMAGE FORMING APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12572094
FIXING DEVICE AND IMAGE PROCESSING DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12566391
IMAGE FORMING APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12566392
BELT CONVEYANCE DEVICE AND IMAGE FORMING APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
83%
Grant Probability
89%
With Interview (+5.5%)
2y 2m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 765 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month