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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species A in the reply filed on 6/29/26 is acknowledged.
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.
Claims 3, 4, 7, 8, and 12-14, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 3 and 12, from which the remaining claims depend, recite the limitations “a plurality of first-color (second-color, third-color, and fourth-color) blocks”, and then later recite “a first-color block, a second-color block, a third-color block, and a fourth-color block”.
It is unclear whether these are the same blocks as in the plurality of the respective color blocks, or whether these are entirely separate blocks from those of the plurality. As such, there is no reasonable certainty as to the metes and bounds of the claims.
For the purpose of examination, Examiner shall construe these limitations as best as one is able.
Claims 7, 8, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 7 and 16, from which the remaining claims depend, recite the limitations “and/or”. A broader limitation (or) provided within the same claim also having a narrower scope (and) creates confusion as to which limitations a claim requires. See MPEP 2173.05(c). It is unclear whether one needs both elements in order to infringe (and); or, whether one alone would suffice (or). As such, there is no reasonable certainty as to the metes and bounds of the claims.
Should Applicants wish to include the possibility of having both, Examiner recommends removing the “and/”, and adding “; or both” to the end of the claim for clarity.
For the purpose of examination, Examiner construes the claim in a manner that provides its broadest reasonable interpretation (or). MPEP 2111.
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)(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 1-3, 10-12, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Sakatani, U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2012/0050771.
Regarding independent claim 10, an image forming device, comprising:
a processor (the combination of the processing sections 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, and 80); and
a first image forming unit (41K and 42K) and a second image forming unit (41Y and 42Y), wherein the first image forming unit and the second image forming unit are powered by a same power supply (there is no indication that there are separate power supplies, nor does the claim limit what includes a power supply, therefore, the nearest power generation facility reads on this limitation, such as the nearest nuclear, coal, solar, or wind power generation facility),
wherein the processor is configured to control the first image forming unit to form a first-color correction pattern (fig 6, pattern K; or, fig 7 pattern K) on an image carrier (intermediate transfer belt 43, which carries the image until it is transferred onto a sheet P as in fig 6), and control the second image forming unit to form a second-color correction pattern (fig 6, pattern Y; or, correspondingly, fig 7 pattern R) on the image carrier (intermediate transfer belt 43, which carries the image until it is transferred onto a sheet P as in fig 6), and
wherein the image carrier includes a first imaging area (the area corresponding to the left side of the paper P on the left of fig 6 or 7) and a second imaging area (the area corresponding to the right side of the paper P on the left of fig 6 or 7) disposed on two sides (the left and right sides) along a direction perpendicular to a carrier conveying direction respectively (¶ 88), the first-color correction pattern is imaged in the first imaging area (fig 6 or 7, showing the result as transferred), and the second-color correction pattern is imaged in the second imaging area (fig 6, showing the result as transferred).
Regarding claim 11, which depends from claim 10, further comprising third image forming unit (41M and 42M) and a fourth image forming unit (41C and 42C), wherein:
the first image forming unit, the second image forming unit, the third image forming unit and the fourth image forming unit are powered by the same power supply (there is no indication that there are separate power supplies, nor does the claim limit what includes a power supply, therefore, the nearest power generation facility reads on this limitation, such as the nearest nuclear, coal, solar, or wind power generation facility);
the processor is configured to control a developing voltage of the power supply so that the first image forming unit forms the first-color correction pattern (fig 6 pattern K; or, fig 7 pattern K) on the image carrier, the second image forming unit forms the second-color correction pattern (fig 6 pattern Y; or, correspondingly, fig 7 pattern R) on the image carrier, the third image forming unit forms (¶ 83, describing that R includes magenta) a third-color correction pattern (fig 6 pattern R; or, correspondingly, fig 7 pattern C) on the image carrier, and the fourth image forming unit forms (¶ 83, describing that Pb includes cyan) a fourth-color correction pattern (fig 6 pattern Pb; or, correspondingly, fig 7 pattern G) on the image carrier (¶ 5, 67, describing the developing potential developing the latent images); and
the first-color correction pattern and the third-color correction pattern are sequentially imaged in the first imaging area along the carrier conveying direction (fig 6 or 7, showing the result as transferred), and the second-color correction pattern and the fourth-color correction pattern are sequentially imaged in the second imaging area along the carrier conveying direction (fig 6 or 7, showing the result as transferred).
Regarding claim 12, which depends from claim 11, wherein:
the first-color correction pattern includes a plurality of first-color blocks (fig 6 or 7), the second- color correction pattern includes a plurality of second-color blocks (fig 6 or 7), the third-color correction pattern includes a plurality of third-color blocks (fig 6 or 7), the fourth-color correction pattern includes a plurality of fourth-color blocks (fig 6 or 7), and the first-color blocks, the second- color blocks, the third-color blocks and the fourth-color blocks have a plurality of color concentration levels (¶ 85); and
a first-color block, a second-color block, a third-color block, and a fourth-color block that have a same color concentration level correspond to a same developing voltage (as best as Examiner can construe this indefinite limitation, each block within the plurality of blocks for each color corresponds to a particular concentration value of that respective color, obtained using the same developing voltage whenever that particular block is formed, so that there is a particular gradation value associated with each block, ¶ 85).
The devices of claim 10-12, in their normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the methods of claim 1-3. MPEP 2112.02 (I).
The devices of claims 10 and 11, in their normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the methods claimed, MPEP 2112.02 (I), and as such, must have them stored somewhere in a storage medium such as in claims 19 and 20.
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.
Claims 4, 5, 7, 8, 13, 14, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakatani, U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2012/0050771, in view of well known prior art, and Kiryu, U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2007/0041753.
Sakatani teaches patches aligned on one side of the sheet and the other in a direction perpendicular to the conveying direction. Even in the embodiment of fig 7, Sakatani thus fails to teach a shift in the conveyance direction between corresponding patches on one side of the sheet and the other.
As such, Sakatani fails to teach:
Regarding claim 13, which depends from claim 12, wherein the first-color correction pattern includes M first-color blocks, the second-color correction pattern includes M second-color blocks, the third-color correction pattern includes M third-color blocks, and the fourth-color correction pattern includes M fourth-color blocks, and an N-th first-color block, an N-th second-color block, an N-th third-color block, and an N-th fourth-color block have the same color concentration level;
a distance between the N-th first-color block and the N-th second-color block in the carrier conveying direction is equal to a distance between the first image forming unit and the second image forming unit;
a distance between the N-th second-color block and the N-th third-color block in the carrier conveying direction is equal to a distance between the second image forming unit and the third image forming unit; and
a distance between the N-th third-color block and the N-th fourth-color block in the carrier conveying direction is equal to a distance between the third image forming unit and the fourth image forming unit,
wherein M and N are natural numbers greater than 1, and M is greater than or equal to N;
Regarding claim 14, which depends from claim 13, wherein at least two of the distance between the first image forming unit and the second image forming unit, the distance between the second image forming unit and the third image forming unit, and the distance between the third image forming unit and the fourth image forming unit are equal; and,
Examiner takes official notice that it is well known in the art of electrophotography to space color correction patterns apart on a test surface by the circumference of the image forming units. One having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing does so to mitigate the effects of eccentric rollers on printed densities of the color correction pattern components. See, e.g.: Ishida et al., U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2022/0397852; Naruse et al., U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2014/0064799; and, Endoh, U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2012/0057892.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of effective filing to space color correction patterns apart on a test surface by the circumference of the image forming units. One having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing does so to mitigate the effects of eccentric rollers on printed densities of the color correction pattern components.
Moreover, Kiryu teaches spacing the imaging forming unit apart by the circumference of the image forming units (¶ 33). Kiryu does so to mitigate the effects of eccentric rollers on relative color shifts between different colors (¶ 33).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of effective filing to space the imaging forming unit apart by the circumference of the image forming units. One having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing would have done so to further mitigate the effects of eccentric rollers on relative color shifts between different colors, in addition to density variations from such eccentric rollers.
As combined, the prior art teaches the above limitations regarding spacing the patches by the distance between the image forming units. One having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing would have done so to mitigate the effects of eccentric rollers on both relative color shifts between different colors, as well as density variations. Such can be applied to either the embodiment of fig 6 or fig 7 of Sakatani.
Regarding claim 16, which depends from claim 13, Sakatani further teaches wherein:
in the carrier conveying direction, the M first-color blocks and the M third-color blocks have a same arrangement order, wherein the arrangement order is determined by color concentration level (¶ 85); and/or,
in the carrier conveying direction, the M second-color blocks and the M fourth-color blocks have a same arrangement order, wherein the arrangement order is determined by color concentration level (¶ 85).
Such can be applied to either the embodiment of fig 6 or fig 7 of Sakatani.
Regarding claim 17, which depends from claim 16, Sakatani further teaches wherein the arrangement order is determined by color concentration level includes that in the carrier conveying direction, the color concentration levels are arranged from high to low (¶ 85).
Such can be applied to either the embodiment of fig 7 of Sakatani.
Regarding claims 4, 5, 7, and 8, the devices of claims 13, 14, 16, and 17, in their normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the methods of claim 5, 7, and 8. MPEP 2112.02 (I).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEVAN A AYDIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3209. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9AM-6PM PT.
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, Walter Lindsay can be reached at (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 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.
/SEVAN A AYDIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights