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.
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 1-9 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.
Claims 1 and 9 each recite the limitation "the image forming apparatus to which the unit is attached in a refurbish operation" in the last paragraph of the respective claims. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in each of the claims. Note that these recitations of “image forming apparatus” are referring to a different image forming apparatus than the one already set forth that includes “the unit”.
Note that recitation of the two different image forming apparatuses in claim 1 leads to confusion in dependent claims 2-8 when reciting “(T/t)he image forming apparatus”. It is not clear which image forming apparatus is being referred to in the dependent claims.
As such, claims 1-9 are rendered indefinite. For examination purposes, these limitations will be interpreted as best as one is able.
Note: the following rejections are based upon the claims as best understood by Examiner.
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) 1-4, 7, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yoshida (US 2007/0014614).
Regarding claim 1, Yoshida discloses an image forming apparatus (Fig. 1 [0042]) including a unit (e.g., fuser, laser, drum, toner; see Figs. 2 & 11) and an image forming apparatus main body to which the unit is attached (though neither explicitly discussed nor shown, some sort of main body must be present in order to support the various units of the apparatus in order for it to function as intended), the image forming apparatus comprising:
an image former 20 that forms an image on a sheet (Figs. 1-2 [0047]);
and a hardware processor 10 (Fig. 1 [0043]) that forms, on the sheet by the image former, a print image including state information (i.e., error history information, error statistics information and usage state information) indicating a state of the unit to be handed over from the image forming apparatus from which the unit is detached to the image forming apparatus to which the unit is attached in a refurbish operation (this limitation is interpreted as intended use of the unit, not further limiting the structure of the claimed apparatus) (Fig. 11 [0066]), and displays, on a display, at least a portion of the print image indicating the state information ([0066]).
Regarding claim 2, Yoshida discloses the image forming apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the hardware processor is configured to, in a case in which image formation by the image former is not possible (e.g., when there is a toner-out error; [0024]), display, on the display, at least the portion of the print image indicating the state information ([0066]).
Regarding claim 3, Yoshida discloses the image forming apparatus according to claim 1, wherein in a case in which a plurality of the units are detached from the image forming apparatus, the hardware processor displays the portions indicating the plurality of the state information respectively corresponding to the plurality of units aligned on the same screen displayed on the display (because the state information is displayed as described in [0066-0067], the state information would presumably be displayed in a case in which a plurality of the units are detached from the image forming apparatus).
Regarding claim 4, Yoshida discloses the image forming apparatus according to claim 1, wherein in a case in which a plurality of units are detached from the image forming apparatus (because the state information is displayed as described in [0066-0067], the state information would presumably be displayed in a case in which a plurality of the units are detached from the image forming apparatus), the hardware processor sequentially switches and displays the portions indicating the plurality of the state information corresponding to the plurality of units on the display ([0067]; “it is also possible to select information to be outputted among the above-described information by means of the input from the input unit 30 and then output the selected information on a screen alternatively … the system may be configured such that the displays of error history information, error statistics information and usage state information are switched on a liquid crystal display by the print controlling unit 10 on the basis of a predetermined input of the input unit 30 such as the input operation of a touch switch (input unit 30) of a liquid crystal display (display unit 31)”).
Regarding claim 7, Yoshida discloses the image forming apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the hardware processor displays a code image (display unit 31 is a liquid crystal display [0045], and therefore utilizes code to control the pixels on the display) that restores the print image on the display (the image that is printed is also displayed on the display; [0066]).
Regarding claim 9, Yoshida discloses a non-transitory computer readable storage medium 13 (Fig. 1 [0043]) comprising a program that causes a computer 11 of an image forming apparatus 100 including a unit (e.g., fuser, laser, drum, toner; see Figs. 2 & 11), an image forming apparatus main body to which the unit is attached (though neither explicitly discussed nor shown, some sort of main body must be present in order to support the various units of the apparatus in order for it to function as intended), and an image former20 that forms an image on a sheet (Figs. 1-2 [0047]), to perform: forming, on the sheet by the image former, a print image including state information (i.e., error history information, error statistics information and usage state information) indicating a state of the unit to be handed over from the image forming apparatus from which the unit is detached to the image forming apparatus to which the unit is attached in a refurbish operation (this limitation is interpreted as intended use of the unit, not further limiting the structure of the claimed apparatus) (Fig. 11 [0066]), and displaying, on a display, at least a portion of the print image indicating the state information ([0066]).
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) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida (US 2007/0014614) in view of Chung (US 2025/0116961).
Regarding claim 5, Yoshida discloses the image forming apparatus according to claim 4, but fails to disclose wherein the hardware processor switches the portion indicating the state information displayed on the display at a timing of receiving a notification indicating that capturing is executed from an imaging apparatus communicably connected to the image forming apparatus.
Chung teaches communicably connecting an imaging apparatus 300b to an image forming apparatus and using the imaging apparatus 300b as an operation module which may be utilized in lieu of a pre-built operation module that is a display/touch screen (Fig. 4 [0028, 0032-0033]).
Based on the teachings of Chung, 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 of Yoshida such that an imaging apparatus is communicably connected to the image forming apparatus. One would have been motivated to make this modification in order to decrease waste touch screens and reduce the damage to the environment, and reduce the manufacturing costs of printers and the purchasing loading of users (Chung [0043]).
In making this modification, the hardware processor would switch the portion indicating the state information displayed on the display at a timing of receiving a notification indicating that capturing is executed (i.e., an input of the input unit is received; see Yoshida [0067]) from the imaging apparatus communicably connected to the image forming apparatus.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida (US 2007/0014614) in view of Hirama (US 2013/0136459).
Regarding claim 6, Yoshida discloses the image forming apparatus according to claim 1, The state information is displayed for various units as described in [0066-0067].)
Yoshida fails to disclose a sensor that senses removal of the unit from the image forming apparatus main body and displaying the portion indicating the corresponding to the unit whose removal is sensed by the sensor.
Hirama teaches a sensor that senses removal of a unit (toner 320; Fig. 1 [0072]) and LEDs that light or blink ([0120-0121]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Yoshida to include a sensor that senses removal of a unit, including the corresponding LEDs and control thereof, as taught by Hirama. One would have been motivated to make this modification in order to promote efficient usage of the toner by a user by preventing the toner that is not required to be replaced from mistakenly being replaced (Hirama [0121]).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida (US 2007/0014614).
Regarding claim 8, Yoshida discloses the image forming apparatus according to claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the hardware processor restricts image formation processing by the image former after the hardware processor completes display of the portion indicating the state information on the display.
Yoshida, however, discusses a “toner-out error” detectable by the apparatus ([0048]). As such, 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 to restrict image formation processing by the image former after the hardware processor completes display of the portion indicating the state information on the display. One would have been motivated to do so in order to prevent outputting a low-quality printed product.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Langendijk et al. (US 2025/0225144) is cited for teaching export of data by generating printed code images.
Conclusion
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