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 .
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.
Claim Interpretation
Applicant’s claim amendments obviate interpretation of limitations under 35 U.S.C. 112 (f).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nada et al. (US 2009/0136247; “Nada”) in view of Fujita (US 2022/0129225).
Regarding claim 1, Nada discloses an image forming apparatus (Fig. 1 [0018]), comprising:
a belt 10 which conveys a toner image including a to-be-transferred toner image to be transferred onto a sheet 30 (Fig. 1 [0029]);
a roller 22 which transfers the to-be-transferred toner image conveyed by the belt 10 onto the sheet 30 that comes into contact with the belt 10 (Fig. 1 [0023]);
an electronic circuit (within control device 38; [0043]), wherein the electronic circuit includes:
a movement processing portion which causes a formation target image corresponding to the to-be-transferred toner image, that is included in image data used for forming the toner image, to move within the image data (in step S7; Fig. 5 [0042])
a determination processing portion which determines whether or not the to-be-transferred toner image that is based on the formation target image that has been moved by the movement processing portion will stick out from a contact area (corresponding to PX and PY; Fig. 3 [0040]) of the belt 10 that comes into contact with the sheet (in steps S4-S7; Fig. 5 [0042]).
Nada fails to disclose causing the formation target image to move within the image data based on a movement amount set by a user operation.
Fujita teaches a similar image forming apparatus that includes a movement processing portion which causes a formation target image (image contained within print range frame 402; Fig. 4 [0036]) corresponding to a to-be-transferred toner image, that is included in image data used for forming a toner image, to move within the image data based on a movement amount set by a user operation (Figs. 5A-5B [0037-0038]; A user can freely arrange image 403 by pinching/dragging. Any part of image 403 existing outside of frame 402 will be trimmed.)
Based on the teachings of Fujita, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure the movement processing portion of Nada such that the formation target image is able to move within the image data based on a movement amount set by a user operation. One would have been motivated to make this modification in order to allow a user to enlarge and print only portions of the image that are desired.
Regarding claim 2, modified Nada teaches the image forming apparatus according to claim 1, but does not explicitly teach wherein the electronic circuit includes a cutout processing portion which cuts out, when determined by the determination processing portion that the to-be-transferred toner image will stick out from the contact area, a partial image of the formation target image that corresponds to a stick-out portion of the to-be-transferred toner image that sticks out from the contact area.
The print system 10 of Fujita comprises a processing portion that: (a) causes a formation target image corresponding to a to-be-transferred toner image, that is included in image data used for forming a toner image, to move within the image data (see Figs. 5A-5C [0037]), and (b) determines whether or not the to-be-transferred toner image that is based on the formation target image that has been moved by the movement processing portion will stick out from a contact area of a sheet (corresponding to print range frame 402 which represents a print effective region; Fig. 4 [0036]).
The processing portion of Fujita additionally cuts out, when determining that the to-be-transferred toner image will stick out from the contact area (i.e., when trimming is performed; see the flowchart of Fig. 7 [0041-0049]), a partial image of the formation target image that corresponds to a stick-out portion of the to-be-transferred toner image that sticks out from the contact area (i.e., only the image data within print range frame 402 is set as output image data, the image data beyond print range frame 402 is cut out in steps S901->S902->S905->S906; Fig. 9 [0054-0055, 0057-0058]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure the apparatus with a cutout processing portion which cuts out, when determined by the determination processing portion that the to-be-transferred toner image will stick out from the contact area, a partial image of the formation target image that corresponds to a stick-out portion of the to-be-transferred toner image that sticks out from the contact area, as taught by Fujita. It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. In this instance, the predictable results would be an image forming apparatus that allows a user to resize an image while achieving intended print results.
The method steps of claim 3 are met by the operation of Nada modified by Fujita as applied to claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 5-7 of the Remarks, Applicant argues that neither Nada nor Fujita disclose or suggest a movement processing portion which causes a formation target image corresponding to the to-be-transferred toner image, that is included in image data used for forming the toner image, to move within the image data based on a movement amount set by a user operation. However, as outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above, Fujita teaches this feature and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Fujita with Nada to reach Applicant’s claimed apparatus.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARLA J THERRIEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2677. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8 am - 4 pm EST.
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.
/CARLA J THERRIEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights