Prosecution Insights
Last updated: October 02, 2026
Application No. 19/189,745

IMAGE FORMING APPARATUS CAPABLE OF SHORTENING INTERVAL OF SHEET FEED OPERATION BY SHEET FEED PORTION, AND DRIVE CONTROL METHOD

Non-Final OA §102
Filed
Apr 25, 2025
Priority
Apr 30, 2024 — JP 2024-073310
Examiner
HEREDIA OCASIO, ARLENE J
Art Unit
2852
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Kyocera Document Solutions Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
75%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3m
Est. Remaining
78%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 75% — above average
75%
Career Allowance Rate
410 granted / 544 resolved
+7.4% vs TC avg
Minimal +3% lift
Without
With
+3.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
1y 8m
Avg Prosecution
27 currently pending
Career history
570
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.6%
-39.4% vs TC avg
§103
46.8%
+6.8% vs TC avg
§102
28.4%
-11.6% vs TC avg
§112
22.5%
-17.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 544 resolved cases

Office Action

§102
CTNF 19/189,745 CTNF 90688 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation 07-30-03 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. 07-30-05 The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. 07-30-06 This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a transfer portion, a sheet feed portion, a conveying member, a detection processing portion, a drive control portion in claim 1; a transfer portion, a sheet feed portion, a conveying member, in claim 2. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15-aia AIA Claim(s) 1 and 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2015/0220042 to Kanno . Kanno teaches: (claim 1) An image forming apparatus (Fig.1), comprising: a transfer portion (82/86) which transfers a toner image onto a sheet (P); a sheet feed portion which includes a conveying member (18) which conveys, on a conveying path of the sheet that passes through a transfer position of the toner image by the transfer portion, the sheet at a position that is more on an upstream side of a conveying direction of the sheet than the transfer position, and feeds the sheet at a predetermined sheet feed cycle from a sheet feed position that is more on a downstream side of the conveying direction than the conveying member on the conveying path [0025]; a stepping motor (not shown) which drives the conveying member [0025]; a detection processing portion (35) which detects the sheet conveyed by the conveying member at a position that is more on the upstream side of the conveying direction than the sheet feed position on the conveying path; and a drive control portion (208) which drives the stepping motor such that the sheet reaches the sheet feed position at a time a next sheet feed timing by the sheet feed portion arrives based on a detection timing of the sheet by the detection processing portion (Fig. 4, [0034, 0057, 0060-0068]). (claim 2) A drive control method executed in an image forming apparatus including a transfer portion which transfers a toner image onto a sheet, a sheet feed portion which includes a conveying member which conveys, on a conveying path of the sheet that passes through a transfer position of the toner image by the transfer portion, the sheet at a position that is more on an upstream side of a conveying direction of the sheet than the transfer position, and feeds the sheet at a predetermined sheet feed cycle from a sheet feed position that is more on a downstream side of the conveying direction than the conveying member on the conveying path, and a stepping motor which drives the conveying member, the drive control method comprising: a detection step (S503) of detecting the sheet conveyed by the conveying member at a position that is more on the upstream side of the conveying direction than the sheet feed position on the conveying path; and a drive control step (S508) of driving the stepping motor such that the sheet reaches the sheet feed position at a time a next sheet feed timing by the sheet feed portion arrives based on a detection timing of the sheet in the detection step (Fig.4). Kanno taches the claimed method, since it has been held that when the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARLENE HEREDIA whose telephone number is (571)272-8393. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:30-5:30. 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. /Arlene Heredia Ocasio/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852 Application/Control Number: 19/189,745 Page 2 Art Unit: 2852 Application/Control Number: 19/189,745 Page 3 Art Unit: 2852 Application/Control Number: 19/189,745 Page 4 Art Unit: 2852 Application/Control Number: 19/189,745 Page 5 Art Unit: 2852 Application/Control Number: 19/189,745 Page 6 Art Unit: 2852
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 25, 2025
Application Filed
May 29, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §102 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12750451
IMAGE FORMING APPARATUS AND CONTROLLING METHOD FOR THE SAME
2y 0m to grant Granted Sep 29, 2026
Patent 12743041
IMAGE-FORMING APPARATUS GENERATING ELECTRICAL DISCHARGE UPSTREAM OF TRANSFER PORTION
3y 8m to grant Granted Sep 22, 2026
Patent 12743038
IMAGE FORMING APPARATUS
2y 0m to grant Granted Sep 22, 2026
Patent 12710715
IMAGE FORMING APPARATUS WITH FIXING VIA ROTARY HEATER AND BONDING VIA HEATER CONFIGURED TO MOVE IN THICKNESS DIRECTION
3y 4m to grant Granted Aug 18, 2026
Patent 12710713
IMAGE FORMING APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Aug 18, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
75%
Grant Probability
78%
With Interview (+3.0%)
1y 8m (~3m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 544 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance 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