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 .
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.
Specification
ABSTRACT - The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it merely consists of a single run-on sentence without regard for proper grammatical form. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
TITLE - The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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 12-15 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.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "a light source of the optical sensor" in the last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination over prior art, this limitation is interpreted as the light source of the optical sensor.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5, 12, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2020/0370883 to Ogata et al.
Ogata teaches:
(claim 1) A calibration device that calibrates a reference value of an optical sensor that measures a characteristic of a recording medium on a conveyance path, the calibration device comprising: a turner (25) that turns, by a driving force from a driving source (281), within a range between a calibration position (i.e., closed) for calibrating the reference value and a retraction position (i.e., second open state) retreated from the calibration position; and a switcher (282) that switches a transmission state of the driving force from the driving source to the turner based on a turning position of the turner (Fig.4 & Fig.5; [0064-0069]).
(claim 2) The calibration device according to claim 1, wherein the switcher: transmits the driving force to the turner when the turner is located within the range; and interrupts transmission of the driving force to the turner when the turner is located at the calibration position or the retraction position [0082-0085].
(claim 4) The calibration device according to claim 1, further comprising a hardware processor (15) that controls a driving amount of the driving source such that a turning amount of the turner exceeds the range (i.e., fully open/first open state) in at least one of a case where the turner turns from the calibration position toward the retraction position calibration position.
(claim 5) The calibration device according to claim 4, wherein the hardware processor controls the driving amount of the driving source such that a first driving amount by which the turner is turned from the retraction position toward the calibration position is different from a second driving amount by which the turner is turned from the calibration position toward the retraction position (during open/close operation a driving amount is smaller than a driving amount from the calibration position to an image forming position, [0067]).
(claim 12) The calibration device according to claim 1, wherein the optical sensor includes a light source (22) and a light receiver (23) that receives light from the light source, and wherein the turner turns with a turning shaft (G) parallel to an optical axis of a light source of the optical sensor (Fig.4).
(claim 15) The calibration device according to claim 12, wherein the calibration device is disposed at a position between two conveyance rollers that convey the recording medium in a conveyance direction (X) of the recording medium in the conveyance path (sheet supplier 11 and conveyor 13 are construed to include such rollers), and wherein a detection region of the optical sensor in the conveyance path is located at a position overlapping the two conveyance rollers in a direction that is parallel to the recording medium in the conveyance path and is orthogonal to the conveyance direction of the recording medium (Fig.4).
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) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0370883 to Ogata et al., as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of US 2022/0373953 to Dokiya et al.
Regarding claim 13, Ogata teaches a calibration device according to claim 12 but appears silent about a plurality of the light sources. Dokiya discloses an optical sensor that measures a characteristic of a recording medium on a conveyance path including a plurality of the light sources (211, 212) provided side by side in a direction that is parallel to a conveyance surface of the recording medium (M) in a conveyance path and is orthogonal to a conveyance direction of the recording medium, and a light receiver (220) that receives light from the light source (Fig.3A). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the optical sensor of Ogata such that a plurality of the light sources is provided side by side in a direction that is parallel to a conveyance surface of the recording medium in the conveyance path and is orthogonal to a conveyance direction of the recording medium, for at least the purpose of enabling determination of a type/class of recording medium based on a determination result of various properties according to different wavelengths of reflected light.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0370883 to Ogata et al.
Regarding claim 14, Ogata teaches a calibration device according to claim 12, wherein the turner turns with a turning shaft (G). Although Ogata does not teach the turning shaft parallel to a conveyance direction of the recording medium in the conveyance path, these features are considered a mere rearrangement of parts as an obvious matter of design choice that would not have substantially modified the operation of the device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 6-11 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 identified prior art does not teach or suggest a calibration device wherein the switcher is a torque limiter that switches between transmission and non- transmission of the driving force through turning restriction by the first restrictor and the second restrictor, in combination with all other features recited in claim 3.
The identified prior art does not teach or suggest a calibration device wherein an absolute value of a difference between a turning angle of the turner based on the first driving amount and a turning angle of the turner based on the second driving amount is a value other than a divisor of 360 degrees, in combination with all other features recited in claim 6.
The identified prior art does not teach or suggest a calibration device wherein the switcher switches a portion of the turning shaft where the turning member is disposed and a portion of the turning shaft where the transmission gear is disposed between a connected state and a disconnected state, in combination with all other features recited in claim 7.
The identified prior art does not teach or suggest a calibration device wherein the holder is fixed to the housing at a plurality of points surrounding the driving source, in combination with all other features recited in claim 9.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2021/0063938 is relevant to features of holders for a reference sheet to calibrate recording media optical sensors.
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
Prosecution Insights