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 .
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.
Claims 1-4, 6, 7, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over well known prior art, in view of other well known prior art, and Takeshi, JP H11-202576.
Regarding independent claim 1, Examiner takes official notice that it is well known in the art of electrophotography to provide an image forming apparatus to be applied to image formation of an overprint image (such as printing several different colors in one pass; or, printing several passes of several different colors; both of which overprint) on a recording medium, and utilizing eye marks to align the same sheet at different color stations; or, to align the same sheet at the same color station at a subsequent pass. Such apparatus provide the eye mark so as to properly place the subsequently formed images at the correct locations with respect to previously formed images. See, e.g.: Okuzawa, U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2021/0318648 (same inventor); Sugata, U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2020/0298602; Sugata, U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2019/0196379; Sasami, U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2019/0121273; Nishikawa et al., U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2018/0329347; Ikeda, U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2018/0089545; and, Hunold et al., U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2002/0050219 (hereafter “eye mark references set”). See MPEP 2144.03 (C) for guidance.
To do so, each of the base references inherently comprise:
a conveyer that conveys the recording medium along a conveyance path by a driving roller;
an eye mark detector that is disposed in the conveyance path and detects an eye mark formed on the recording medium in advance;
an image former that is disposed downstream of the eye mark detector in the conveyance path and forms the overprint image at a predetermined position on the recording medium with reference to a position of the eye mark on the recording medium.
Applicant adds to the well known prior art:
a speed detector that includes a speed detection roller to be brought into contact with the recording medium in the conveyance path and detects a conveyance speed of the recording medium based on a rotation speed of the speed detection roller,
wherein the eye mark detector is disposed at a position separated by an integral multiple of a roller circumferential length of the driving roller and also by a non-integral multiple of a roller circumferential length of the speed detection roller from a position at which the image former forms the overprint image on the recording medium.
Examiner further takes official notice that separating a mark detector an integral multiple of a roller circumferential length of the driving roller away from the target of image formation, or other processing relying on the detected position, is well known in the art of electrophotography. Such is done to avoid the effect of any eccentricities in the driving roller that may be present by ensuring that cyclical separation in phase between the detected position and the target position are separated by a full cycle of phase, so as to match the phases between the detection position and the target position. See, e.g.: Terai, U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2023/0150282, ¶ 67-68; Gohda et al., U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2022/0169048, ¶ 247; Yamazaki et al., U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2021/0166096, ¶ 72-77; Maeyama et al., U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2019/0161301, ¶ 148; Mori et al., U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2019/0049872, ¶ 129; and, Yamanaka et al., U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2004/0033090, ¶ 133 (hereafter “integral references set”). See MPEP 2144.03 (C) for guidance.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of effective filing to provide “wherein the eye mark detector is disposed at a position separated by an integral multiple of a roller circumferential length of the driving roller … from a position at which the image former forms the overprint image on the recording medium”. One having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing would have done so to negate the effect of any eccentricities of the driving roller of positional measurements by ensuring the measurement and target location are in the same phase.
The combination of the eye mark references set and the integral references set teaches providing properly spaced position detection sensors to begin an overprint at the proper position. However, the combination also recognizes that there may be eccentricities in the driving roller which require properly spaced sensors in the first place. Merely starting at the proper position, however, does not guarantee that possible eccentricities will not affect the processing that occurs after the proper initial starting position. Thus, although the combination of the eye mark references set and the integral references set recognizes that there may be eccentricities in the driving roller which affect position, the combination fails to provide any way of correcting for those variations in positioning over time – speed. As such, the combination of the eye mark references set and the integral references set still fails to teach:
a speed detector that includes a speed detection roller to be brought into contact with the recording medium in the conveyance path and detects a conveyance speed of the recording medium based on a rotation speed of the speed detection roller,
wherein the eye mark detector is disposed at a position separated by … a non-integral multiple of a roller circumferential length of the speed detection roller from a position at which the image former forms the overprint image on the recording medium.
Takeshi teaches overprinting several color on each other utilizing a controlledly driven belt, as either an intermediate transfer belt (“At this time, the motor drive circuit 3 controls the rotation of the intermediate transfer belt 1 according to the control signal so that the intermediate transfer belt 1 runs at a predetermined speed.”) or transport belt, or even continuous paper (“It may be used for controlling belt-shaped continuous paper or a belt for transporting recording paper.”). Takeshi recognizes that the prior art provided encoder based speed detection to account for misregistration arising from speed fluctuations due to eccentricities in both driving rollers and encoder rollers (“Japanese Patent Application Laid-Open No. 4-172376 discloses that the intermediate transfer belt is controlled without being affected by the above-described fluctuation component due to the eccentricity of the encoder roller so that a pixel position shift does not occur in an output image.”). However, Takeshi further recognizes that the ordinary practice of spacing image forming units an integral multiple of the driven encoder roller apart, to match phases as in the combination, requires higher component precision to do properly, thereby increasing cost (“However, according to this conventional image forming apparatus, since the interval between the image forming units is set to an integral multiple of the circumference of the encoder roller, it is necessary to increase the component precision and component positioning precision, and the size and There has been a problem that layout is greatly restricted and costs are high.”). The ultimate issue is that the eccentricity of the encoder based speed detection roller adds to the eccentricity of the driving roller, affecting the speed measurement.
To solve the above cost related issue, Takeshi spaces the encoder based speed detection roller apart from the driving roller by a non-integral amount of the circumference of the driven roller (“Here, when the outer diameter of the belt driving roller 2 and the outer diameter of the encoder roller 29 are made a non-integer multiple, as shown in FIGS. 4 (a) and 4 (b), Eccentric component of belt drive roller 2 and encoder roller 29 Can be clearly separated. Further, making the outer diameter of the belt drive roller 2 and the outer diameter of the encoder roller 29 a non-integer multiple means that the outer diameter of the belt drive roller 2 and the outer diameter of the encoder roller 29 do not need to be strictly related. Also, the design of the encoder roller 29 and the positioning of each device can be freely performed.” ). Takeshi does so in order to provide a cost effective way of mitigating the effect of eccentricities of the driving roller and the encoder based speed detection roller to provide proper registration throughout the image (“Accordingly, an object of the present invention is not to suppress the fluctuation of the position or the speed of the belt but to prevent the deviation of the registration of the output image and the uneven color, not the fluctuation of the rotation of the rotary shaft of the encoder roller. It is an object of the present invention to provide an image forming apparatus capable of performing the above.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of effective filing to provide “a speed detector that includes a speed detection roller to be brought into contact with the recording medium in the conveyance path and detects a conveyance speed of the recording medium based on a rotation speed of the speed detection roller, wherein the eye mark detector is disposed at a position separated by … a non-integral multiple of a roller circumferential length of the speed detection roller from a position at which the image former forms the overprint image on the recording medium.” One having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing would have done so to provide proper registration through the image, rather than just its beginning, in a cost effective manner.
Takeshi further teaches:
Regarding claim 2, which depends from claim 1, a hardware processor that performs frequency analysis on the conveyance speed of the recording medium (“Here, the encoder roller eccentric component removing unit 33 includes a frequency decomposing circuit 7 for decomposing the frequency of the output signal from the encoder 30, an encoder roller rotational frequency detecting circuit 8 for detecting the rotational frequency of the encoder roller 29, An encoder roller eccentric component extraction circuit 5 for extracting an eccentric component of the encoder roller 29, and a subtraction circuit 4 for subtracting the encoder roller eccentric component from the encoder output signal.”), and controls a rotation speed of the driving roller based on an analysis result of the frequency analysis, the conveyance speed being sequentially detected (“As described above, according to the image forming apparatus of the present invention, the belt drive state detecting signal is generated by removing the eccentric component of the encoder roller from the encoder output signal. The belt drive motor can be controlled by the movement state detection signal, and fluctuations in the position or speed of the belt can be suppressed without increasing the component accuracy and component positioning accuracy that lead to cost increases. And uneven colors can be prevented.”).
Regarding claim 3, which depends from claim 2, wherein the hardware processor sets, based on the analysis result of the frequency analysis, a speed fluctuation canceling waveform so as to selectively cancel a speed fluctuation component of the conveyance speed that changes in a rotation period of the driving roller, and feedback controls the rotation speed of the driving roller in accordance with the speed fluctuation canceling waveform (removing through subtraction of the encoder eccentricity waveform: “FIGS. 5A and 5B show waveforms before and after the eccentric component is removed by the encoder roller eccentric component removing unit 33. FIG. Here, the signal line between the subtraction circuit 4 and the motor drive circuit 3 is cut, and the belt drive motor 22 is rotated at a constant speed. 5A and 5B show waveforms of the encoder output signal from the encoder 30 with respect to time and frequency, and FIGS. 5C and 5D show the belt movement state detection signal from the subtraction circuit 4. 3 shows waveforms of time versus frequency. 5 (a) and 5 (b) and FIGS. 5 (c) and 5 (d), the eccentric component of the encoder roller 29 included in the encoder output signal is calculated from the belt movement state detection signal from the subtraction circuit 4. You can see that it has been removed.”).
Regarding claim 4, which depends from claim 3, wherein the speed fluctuation canceling waveform is a sinusoidal waveform having a frequency corresponding to the rotation period of the driving roller and having an amplitude of the speed fluctuation component of the conveyance speed changing in the rotation period of the driving roller, the amplitude being calculated by the frequency analysis (“Here, the belt movement state detection signal dx(T) can be obtained by the following equation. dx (t) = dxe (t) − (size) × sin ｛ωe ×t + (phase) × π / 180° where dxe (t) indicates an encoder output signal, ωe is the eccentric frequency of the encoder roller 29 (rad /s), and t indicates a clock signal.”).
Regarding claim 6, which depends from claim 2, wherein the hardware processor changes a control mode of feedback-controlling of the rotation speed of the driving roller, based on the analysis result of the frequency analysis. Takeshi chooses the “control mode” corresponding to the determined frequency, as indicated through the presence of the determined frequency in the equations cited above for claim 4 affecting at least how much and when to “control”.
Regarding claim 7, which depends from claim 1, Takeshi renders obvious wherein a diameter of the speed detection roller is smaller than a diameter of the driving roller. One having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing would recognize that there are only two possibilities that comport with the teachings of Takeshi regarding non-integral diameters: either the diameter of the speed detection roller is smaller than the diameter of the driving roller, as claimed; or, diameter of the speed detection roller is larger than a diameter of the driving roller. Two is a small finite number.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of effective filing to try the claimed variation rather that the only other alternative. MPEP 2143 (I)(E). Takeshi teaches non-integral multiple diameters. Such can only be accomplished through two alternatives. One having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing would have expected success with either because the non-integral multiple is what permits Takeshi to separate the eccentricities of the speed detecting roller from the eccentricities of the driving roller, with no effect as a result of which is larger than the other. As such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of effective filing to try both and pick one.
Several of the eye mark references set, the integral references set, and Takeshi further teach:
Regarding claim 13, which depends from claim 1, wherein the recording medium is a continuous sheet (noting that nothing indicates that any of the sheets have discontinuities, even if already cut to size; additionally and alternatively, several of the eye mark references set, the integral references set, and Takeshi teach using a single long continuous rolled up sheet, which will be cut to size later).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over well known prior art, in view of other well known prior art, and Takeshi, JP H11-202576, and further in view of well known prior art.
Regarding claim 5, which depends from claim 3, the combination of the eye mark references set and the integral references set with Takeshi is silent with respect to wherein the hardware processor further calculates a moving average speed of the conveyance speed of the recording medium sequentially detected, and feedback controls the rotation speed of the driving roller such that the moving average speed approaches a reference speed, the moving average speed being a moving average speed per unit time that is equal to or more than the rotation period of the driving roller.
Examiner takes official notice that utilizing moving averages in feedback control of target speed is well known in the art of electrophotography to account for periodic variations, including those due to eccentricities in driving devices, by smoothing out such noises. See, e.g.: Mukaibara et al., U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2017/0134604, ¶ 58; and, Ryu, U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2011/0026994, ¶ 93. See MPEP 2144.03 (C) for guidance. The above utilize the smoothed measurements to control the speeds more accurately.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of effective filing to provide wherein the hardware processor further calculates a moving average speed of the conveyance speed of the recording medium sequentially detected, and feedback controls the rotation speed of the driving roller such that the moving average speed approaches a reference speed, the moving average speed being a moving average speed per unit time that is equal to or more than the rotation period of the driving roller. One having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing would have done so to smooth eccentricities in the controlledly driven pairs subject to feedback control for speed to drive at control speeds more accurately.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-12 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: none of the prior art either alone or in combination teaches the following limitations in combination with the other limitations:
Regarding claim 8, which depends from claim 1, wherein the driving roller is a fixing roller that fixes the overprint image onto the recording medium.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Namekata et al., U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2017/0357198, teaches that fixing rollers are subject to thermal expansion, such that it would thus be impossible to maintain an integral spacing with respect to the circumference of a driven fixing roller, whose circumference changes due to thermal expansion, without also moving the other elements. Namekata et al. further teach that the difference in conveying speed between a fixing pair and a transfer pair is a result effective variable that affects blurring at the fixing pair. Yamaguchi et al., U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2023/0091128, teach that the difference in torque between a driving fixing pair and other rollers that convey a continuous sheet is a result effective variable for the shrinkage amount of the sheet, and thus the sizes of the images printed thereon.
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