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 § 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 1-15 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.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted elements are: a means, method or structural component that would allow or facilitate “the control unit” to “obtain a history value of an amount of toner to be transferred to an end region of each of a plurality of sheets that are consecutively conveyed”.
Claims 5-8 and 13 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.
Claims 5-8 and 13 recites the limitation "the i - 1th sheet" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 6-7 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.
Claim 6 introduces “a saturation value” related to a temperature decrease amount. This saturation value, in the art, is not a particularly known term and also, in the claim, is not specifically defined enough to allow one of ordinary skill in the art to ascertain what this value is.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted elements are: a means, method or structural component that would allow or facilitate obtaining or determining “a saturation value” for the “temperature decrease amount for the non-passage region”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Honke et al. (US Pub.2015/0277308).
Regarding claim 1, Honke et al. (US Pub.2015/0277308) teach an image forming apparatus (fig.1) comprising: an image forming unit configured to form a toner image on a sheet (fig.1, #1-6); a first rotational member (fig.1, #25); a second rotational member configured to be in contact with the first rotational member and form a nip portion and configured to convey the sheet at a predetermined conveyance speed (fig.1, #26 forming nip at #20; para.0039&0043); a heating unit configured to heat, via the first rotational member, the sheet on which the toner image has been formed (fig.1, #20); and a control unit (not shown, but must be present to perform para.0097-0101) configured to control the number of sheets to be heated per unit time by the heating unit (para.0097&0099), wherein the control unit is configured to obtain a history value of an amount of toner to be transferred to an end region of each of a plurality of sheets that are consecutively conveyed (para.0079-0081), the end region extending in parallel with a conveyance direction of the plurality of sheets (fig.7&11, region L&R or regions L1, L2, R1, and R2, respectively), and adjust the number of sheets to be heated per unit time according to the history value (para.0096-0101).
Regarding claim 14, Honke et al. (US Pub.2015/0277308) teach an image forming apparatus wherein the number of sheets to be heated per unit time is adjusted by changing a conveyance interval between a preceding sheet and a succeeding sheet (para.0097).
Regarding claim 15, Honke et al. (US Pub.2015/0277308) teach an image forming apparatus wherein the number of sheets to be heated per unit time is adjusted by changing a conveyance speed of the sheet (para.0097).
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 2, 3, 5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Honke et al. (US Pub.2015/0277308) in view of Yamashita et al. (JP Pub.2022-113367).
Honke et al. (US Pub.2015/0277308) teach all of the limitations of claim 1, upon which claims 2 and 12 depend.
Regarding claim 3, Honke et al. (US Pub.2015/0277308) teach an image forming apparatus wherein the control unit is configured to estimate the temperature of the non-passage region to be lower as the amount of toner indicated by the history value increases and estimate the temperature of the non-passage region to be higher as the amount of toner indicated by the history value decreases (para.0071).
However, Honke et al. (US Pub.2015/0277308) is light on the details of if a temperature limit value is used or similar constraints.
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Yamashita et al. (JP Pub.2022-113367) teach an image forming apparatus (fig.1) comprising: an image forming unit configured to form a toner image on a sheet (fig.1, #1-6); a first rotational member (fig.1, #21); a second rotational member configured to be in contact with the first rotational member and form a nip portion and configured to convey the sheet at a predetermined conveyance speed (fig.1, #22 forming nip); a heating unit configured to heat, via the first rotational member, the sheet on which the toner image has been formed (fig.2, #22A&B heat #S); and a control unit (fig.7) configured to control the number of sheets to be heated per unit time by the heating unit (p.14; p.15, para.3&4), wherein the control unit is configured to obtain a history value of an amount of toner to be transferred to an end region of each of a plurality of sheets that are consecutively conveyed (p.15, para.4), the end region extending in parallel with a conveyance direction of the plurality of sheets (fig.9, region L&R), and adjust the number of sheets to be heated per unit time according to the history value (p.15, para.4), wherein the control unit is configured to estimate, based on the history value, a temperature of a non-passage region through which the sheet does not pass in the nip portion and adjust the number of sheets to be heated per unit time such that the estimated temperature does not exceed an allowable temperature limit of the first rotational member (p.15, para.3-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the controls of Honke et al. (US Pub.2015/0277308) to utilize data from several sheets ahead and prevent exceeding an allowable temperature as in Yamashita et al. (JP Pub.2022-113367) in order to satisfactorily suppress hot offset in the edge area (p.15, para.4).
Regarding claim 5, upon combination, since Honke et al. (US Pub.2015/0277308) teach changing the feed timing of the subsequent (i-th) sheet and thus controls when the trailing end exits the nip as a result (para.0097), and since Yamashita et al. (JP Pub.2022-113367) definitively spells out the use of the values for several sheets ahead (1 to i-1-th)(p.15, para.4), it is the Office’s position that the limitations of claim 5 would necessarily be met by the combination apparatus.
Regarding claim 12, upon combination, since Honke et al. (US Pub.2015/0277308) teach the direct correlation between the printing coverage rate and temperature drop (para.0071) and correlation between sheets per unit time rate and fixing failure (para.0097), and since Yamashita et al. (JP Pub.2022-113367) definitively spells out the use of the values for several sheets ahead (p.15, para.4) it is the Office’s position that the limitations of claim 12 would easily be met by the combination apparatus without undue experimentation by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Honke et al. (US Pub.2015/0277308) in view of Yamashita et al. (JP Pub.2022-113367) as applied to claim3 above, and further in view of Honke et al. (US Pub.2015/0277308), Example 2.
Honke et al. (US Pub.2015/0277308) in view of Yamashita et al. (JP Pub.2022-113367) teach all of the limitations of claim 3, upon which claim 4 depends.
However, Honke et al. (US Pub.2015/0277308) in view of Yamashita et al. (JP Pub.2022-113367) fail to use end regions divided into a plurality of subregions and to weight those differently.
Regarding claim 4, Honke et al. (US Pub.2015/0277308), Example 2, teach an image forming apparatus wherein the history value indicates a contribution to decrease in the temperature of the non-passage region by a toner image formed in the end region (para.0118-0119), and the end region is divided into a plurality of subregions (fig.11, #L1, L2, R1, R2), and the contribution to decrease in the temperature of the non-passage region by a toner image formed in each of the plurality of subregions decreases as a distance from an end of the sheet to each subregion increases and increases as the distance decreases (para.0119&0121).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the apparatus controls of Honke et al. (US Pub.2015/0277308) in view of Yamashita et al. (JP Pub.2022-113367) with the subregional controls of Honke et al. (US Pub.2015/0277308), Example 2, to control the likelihood of fixing failure even if the end portion temperature drop is more conspicuous (para.0121).
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Honke et al. (US Pub.2015/0277308) in view of Yamashita et al. (JP Pub.2022-113367) and in view of Honke et al. (US Pub.2015/0277308), Example 4.
Honke et al. (US Pub.2015/0277308) teach all of the limitations of claim 1, upon which claim 10 depends.
However, Honke et al. (US Pub.2015/0277308) is light on the details of if a temperature limit value is used or similar constraints.
Regarding claim 10, Yamashita et al. (JP Pub.2022-113367) teach an image forming apparatus (fig.1) comprising: an image forming unit configured to form a toner image on a sheet (fig.1, #1-6); a first rotational member (fig.1, #21); a second rotational member configured to be in contact with the first rotational member and form a nip portion and configured to convey the sheet at a predetermined conveyance speed (fig.1, #22 forming nip); a heating unit configured to heat, via the first rotational member, the sheet on which the toner image has been formed (fig.2, #22A&B heat #S); and a control unit (fig.7) configured to control the number of sheets to be heated per unit time by the heating unit (p.14; p.15, para.3&4), wherein the control unit is configured to obtain a history value of an amount of toner to be transferred to an end region of each of a plurality of sheets that are consecutively conveyed (p.15, para.4), the end region extending in parallel with a conveyance direction of the plurality of sheets (fig.9, region L&R), and adjust the number of sheets to be heated per unit time according to the history value (p.15, para.4), wherein the control unit is configured to estimate, based on the history value, a temperature of a non-passage region through which the sheet does not pass in the nip portion and adjust the number of sheets to be heated per unit time such that the estimated temperature does not exceed an allowable temperature limit of the first rotational member (p.15, para.3-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the controls of Honke et al. (US Pub.2015/0277308) to utilize data from several sheets ahead and prevent exceeding an allowable temperature as in Yamashita et al. (JP Pub.2022-113367) in order to satisfactorily suppress hot offset in the edge area (p.15, para.4).
However, Honke et al. (US Pub.2015/0277308), original example, and Yamashita et al. (JP Pub.2022-113367) do not specifically take into account sheet width, though both can be used with a variety of sheet sizes.
Regarding claim 10, Honke et al. (US Pub.2015/0277308), Example 4, teach an image forming apparatus wherein the control unit is configured to estimate, based on a width that is a length of the sheet in a direction orthogonal to the conveyance direction of the sheet and the history value, a temperature of a non-passage region through which the sheet does not pass in the nip portion and adjust the number of sheets to be heated per unit time such that the estimated temperature does not exceed an allowable temperature limit of the first rotational member (para.0137-0138).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the controls of Honke et al. (US Pub.2015/0277308), original example, in view of Yamashita et al. (JP Pub.2022-113367) to account for paper width in use as well as in Honke et al. (US Pub.2015/0277308), Example 4, in order to allow the apparatus to be able to print on various paper sizes (para.0139).
Upon combination, since Example 1 of Honke et al. (US Pub.2015/0277308) is using A4 size paper (with D=0) to set the target control temperature and uses a (15-2D)% threshold to change it, this indicates that for A4, the apparatus would function as in Example 1 with the history alone and with a combined control for other sheet width ranges. As such, the limitations of claim 11 would be met: “wherein the control unit is configured to: in a case where the width is within a predetermined range, estimate the temperature of the non-passage region based on the history value and adjust the number of sheets to be heated per unit time according to the temperature of the non-passage region, and in a case where the width is not within the predetermined range, adjust the number of sheets to be heated per unit time according to the width.”
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-9 and 13 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:
Prior art does not disclose or suggest the claimed “wherein the contribution is obtained by multiplying a difference between a saturation value of a temperature decrease amount for the non-passage region and the history value accumulated from the first sheet to the i - 1-th sheet by a predetermined first coefficient” in combination with the remaining claim elements as set forth in claims 6-7.
Prior art does not disclose or suggest the claimed “the history value accumulated from the first sheet to the i - 1-th sheet is obtained based on: the history value at a timing when a trailing end of the i - 1-th sheet passes through the nip portion, and a fourth coefficient according to an interval from the trailing end of the i - l-th sheet and a leading end of the i-th sheet” in combination with the remaining claim elements as set forth in claim 8.
Prior art does not disclose or suggest the claimed “the temperature of the non-passage region is estimated by subtracting the history value from a standard value of the temperature of the non-passage region” in combination with the remaining claim elements as set forth in claim 9.
Prior art does not disclose or suggest the claimed “and adjust, based on a smaller history value among the history value of the first end region and the history value of the second end region, the number of sheets to be heated per unit time” in combination with the remaining claim elements as set forth in claim 13.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Fujimori (US Pub.2015/0086230) discloses determining if an identifier image is used in a trailing end margin of a sheet and using some of that extra heat to account for the fixing temperature used for a fixing a subsequent sheet.
Kataoka (US Pub.2021/0132529) disclose an image forming apparatus that determines if there is an image in the trailing end margin of a sheet and takes that into account to adjust the fixing temperature for the subsequent sheet.
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/
6/4/2026
/STEPHANIE E BLOSS/ Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights