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 1-20 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.
The 2nd-to-last line of claim 1 recites “reduce a printing density of the fixing device”. It does not make sense to reduce a printing density of the fixing device, when the fixing device is not known to be responsible for the act of printing. For examination purposes, the indefinite language will be interpreted as --reduce a printing density of a printed image--.
The last two lines of claim 7 recite “operate the fixing device to perform a printing operation with a specific sheet type”. This is confusing because the fixing device is not known to be responsible for printing. For examination purposes, the indefinite language will be interpreted as --operate a printing device to perform a printing operation with a specific sheet type--.
The 2nd-to-last line of claim 13 recites “operate the fixing device to perform single-color printing”. It does not make sense for the fixing device, configured to heat a sheet, to perform printing. For examination purposes, the indefinite language will be interpreted as --operate the image forming apparatus to perform single-color printing--.
Dependent claims 2-6, 8-12, and 14-20 are rendered indefinite due to their dependence upon indefinite claims.
Note: the following rejections are based upon the claims as best understood by Examiner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 7, and 13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 9-11 of U.S. Patent No. 11,385,579 (“patent”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the outstanding claims are broader and thus fully met. Note that patent claim 9 does not explicitly claim reducing the printing density “to be less than a threshold printing density”. However, this is an inherent feature when reducing a printing density from some initial amount, the initial amount being considered a threshold.
Claims 1-6, 13-16, and 18-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4 and 6-7 of U.S. Patent No. 11,385,579 (“patent”) in view of Sone et al. (US 2018/0150010; “Sone”).
Regarding outstanding claim 1, though slight differences in wording, claim 1 of the patent claims image forming apparatus comprising: a voltage measuring device configured to measure an input voltage; a fixing device comprising a heater configured to heat a sheet; and a controller configured to: determine a heating timing of the heater when the input voltage is equal to or greater than a threshold, and activate the heater at the determined heating timing.
Claim 1 of the patent fails to claim the controller configured to reduce a printing density of the fixing device to be less than a threshold printing density at a time of heater activation to reduce efficiency of a printing operation.
Sone teaches an image forming apparatus 100 (Fig. 1) comprising a controller 50 (Fig. 3A) configured to reduce a printing density of the fixing device (i.e., a printing density of a printed image) to be less than a threshold printing density ([0161]) at a time of heater activation to reduce efficiency of a printing operation. (Note that Sone does not explicitly describe reducing the printing density specifically at a time of heater activation to reduce efficiency of the printing operation. Regardless, the heater requires activation in order for a printed image to be fixed by the fixing device. Further, any reduction in printing density is interpreted as a reduction of efficiency of the printing operation.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to claim the controller configured to reduce a printing density of the fixing device to be less than a threshold printing density at a time of heater activation to reduce efficiency of a printing operation. One would have been motivated to do so in order to avoid cumbersome control that controls unnoticeable level of image density (Sone [0161]).
Outstanding claims 2-6 clearly correlate to patent claims 2-4 and 6-7, respectively.
Regarding outstanding claim 13, though slight differences in wording, claim 1 of the patent claims image forming apparatus comprising: a voltage measuring device configured to measure an input voltage; a fixing device comprising a heater configured to heat a sheet; and a controller configured to: determine a heating timing of the heater when the input voltage is equal to or greater than a threshold, and activate the heater at the determined heating timing.
Claim 1 of the patent fails to claim the controller configured to operate the fixing device to perform single-color printing at a time of heater activation to reduce efficiency of a printing operation.
Sone teaches an image forming apparatus 100 (Fig. 1) comprising a controller 50 (Fig. 3A) configured to operate the fixing device to perform single-color printing at a time of heater activation to reduce efficiency of a printing operation (in steps S112-S114 the controller switches to monochrome printing; Figs. 13A-13B [0147]). (Note that Sone does not explicitly describe reducing the printing density specifically at a time of heater activation to reduce efficiency of the printing operation. Regardless, the heater requires activation in order for a printed image to be fixed by the fixing device. Further, any reduction in printing density is interpreted as a reduction of efficiency of the printing operation.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to claim the controller configured to operate the fixing device to perform single-color printing at a time of heater activation to reduce efficiency of a printing operation. One would have been motivated to do so in order to avoid cumbersome control that controls unnoticeable level of image density (Sone [0161]).
Outstanding claims 14-16 and 18-19 clearly correlate to patent claims 2-4 and 6-7, respectively.
Regarding outstanding claim 20, modified claim 1 of the patent claims the image forming apparatus of claim 13, but fails to claim wherein the controller is further configured to display a notification indicating single-color printing.
Sone teaches wherein the controller is further configured to display a notification indicating single-color printing ([0147]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to claim wherein the controller is further configured to display a notification indicating single-color printing, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. In this case, the predictable results would be effectively informing a user of a change in printing conditions.
Claim 17 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 11,385,579 in view of Sone (US 2018/0150010) as applied to outstanding claim 15, and further in view of Okada (US 2004/0022550).
Regarding outstanding claim 17, patent claim 3 claims the image forming apparatus of claim 15, but fails to claim wherein the controller is further configured to deactivate the heater before the zero crossing point.
Okada teaches an image forming apparatus (Fig. 1 [0043]) having a controller (DSP 27; Fig. 4 [0057-0058]) configured to deactivate a heater 13/31 (Fig. 4 [0060]) before a zero crossing point (“the turn-off-timing in software is set to 100 µsec before the zero crossing point”; [0073]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to claim the controller further configured to deactivate the heater before the zero crossing point. One would have been motivated to do so in order to execute turning on/off of the heater securely and precisely and execute the phase control based on a more accurate zero crossing point without being influenced by the noise or the power source frequency (Okada [0089]).
Claims 7-12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4 and 6-7 of U.S. Patent No. 11,385,579 in view of Sakai (US 2004/0131374).
Regarding outstanding claim 7, though slight differences in wording, claim 1 of the patent claims image forming apparatus comprising: a voltage measuring device configured to measure an input voltage; a fixing device comprising a heater configured to heat a sheet; and a controller configured to: determine a heating timing of the heater when the input voltage is equal to or greater than a threshold, and activate the heater at the determined heating timing.
Claim 1 of the patent fails to claim the controller configured to operate the fixing device to perform a printing operation with a specific sheet type at a time of heater activation to reduce efficiency of the printing operation.
Sakai teaches an image forming apparatus (Fig. 2) comprising a controller 16 (Fig. 1) configured to operate a fixing device (Fig. 1 [0045]) to perform a printing operation with a specific sheet type (basis weight, thickness, roughness) at a time of heater activation to reduce efficiency of the printing operation (Fig. 3 [0013, 0078]; the basis weight of a sheet determines heat transfer efficiency, and the apparatus will reduce efficiency when printing on different types of paper when adjusting a sheet interval).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to claim the controller configured to operate the fixing device to perform a printing operation with a specific sheet type at a time of heater activation to reduce efficiency of the printing operation. One would have been motivated to make this modification in order to secure a stable fixing property and provide a fixing apparatus which is stable in curling, stacking performance, etc. and gives priority to the print quality (Sakai [0078]).
Outstanding claims 8-12 clearly correlate to patent claims 2-4 and 6-7, respectively.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 13-16, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kakutani (US 2020/0310326) in view of Sone (US 2018/0150010).
Regarding claim 1, Kakutani discloses an image forming apparatus comprising:
a voltage measuring device 301 configured to measure an input voltage (Fig. 2, [0049, 0052]);
a fixing device 150 comprising a heater 210 configured to heat a sheet (Figs. 1-2, [0024, 0031]); and
a controller 201 (Fig. 2) configured to:
determine a heating timing of the heater ([0038]) when the input voltage is equal to or greater than a threshold (as the controller 201 switches control methods based on the effective value of the AC voltage in accordance with regional differences, e.g., 100 V vs 230 V, at least one threshold must exist which serves as the basis for changing the heating timing; [0040-0041]), and
activate the heater at the determined heating timing ([0051-0057]).
Kakutani fails to disclose the controller configured to reduce a printing density of the fixing device to be less than a threshold printing density at a time of heater activation to reduce efficiency of a printing operation.
Sone teaches an image forming apparatus 100 (Fig. 1) comprising a controller 50 (Fig. 3A) configured to reduce a printing density of the fixing device (i.e., a printing density of a printed image) to be less than a threshold printing density ([0161]) at a time of heater activation to reduce efficiency of a printing operation. (Note that Sone does not explicitly describe reducing the printing density specifically at a time of heater activation to reduce efficiency of the printing operation. Regardless, the heater requires activation in order for a printed image to be fixed by the fixing device. Further, any reduction in printing density is interpreted as a reduction of efficiency of the printing operation.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the controller of Kakutani such that it is configured to reduce a printing density of the fixing device to be less than a threshold printing density at a time of heater activation to reduce efficiency of a printing operation. One would have been motivated to do so in order to avoid cumbersome control that controls unnoticeable level of image density (Sone [0161]).
Regarding claim 2, modified Kakutani teaches the image forming apparatus of claim 1, wherein the heating timing is a timing after a peak of the input voltage from a power supply (Kakutani [0043]).
Regarding claim 3, modified Kakutani teaches the image forming apparatus of claim 1, further comprising: a zero crossing detection circuit 303 configured to detect a zero crossing point of the input voltage (Kakutani [0032, 0037, 0040]).
Regarding claim 4, modified Kakutani teaches the image forming apparatus of claim 3, wherein the heating timing is based on the zero crossing point detected by the zero crossing detection circuit (Kakutani [0042]).
Regarding claim 5, modified Kakutani teaches the image forming apparatus of claim 1, wherein the voltage measuring device 301 is configured to measure the input voltage at a predetermined timing (Kakutani [0037, 0049, 0052, 0057]).
Regarding claim 6, modified Kakutani teaches the image forming apparatus of claim 5, wherein the predetermined timing is at least one of a time at which power of the image forming apparatus is turned on or a time at which an elapsed time is reached (Kakutani [0037, 0049, 0052, 0057]).
Regarding claim 13, Kakutani discloses an image forming apparatus comprising:
a voltage measuring device 301 configured to measure an input voltage (Fig. 2, [0049, 0052]);
a fixing device 150 comprising a heater 210 configured to heat a sheet (Figs. 1-2, [0024, 0031]); and
a controller 201 (Fig. 2) configured to:
determine a heating timing of the heater ([0038]) when the input voltage is equal to or greater than a threshold (as the controller 201 switches control methods based on the effective value of the AC voltage in accordance with regional differences, e.g., 100 V vs 230 V, at least one threshold must exist which serves as the basis for changing the heating timing; [0040-0041]), and
activate the heater at the determined heating timing ([0051-0057]).
Kakutani fails to disclose the controller configured to operate the fixing device to perform single-color printing at a time of heater activation to reduce efficiency of a printing operation.
Sone teaches an image forming apparatus 100 (Fig. 1) comprising a controller 50 (Fig. 3A) configured to operate the fixing device to perform single-color printing at a time of heater activation to reduce efficiency of a printing operation (in steps S112-S114 the controller switches to monochrome printing; Figs. 13A-13B [0147]). (Note that Sone does not explicitly describe reducing the printing density specifically at a time of heater activation to reduce efficiency of the printing operation. Regardless, the heater requires activation in order for a printed image to be fixed by the fixing device. Further, any reduction in printing density is interpreted as a reduction of efficiency of the printing operation.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to claim the controller configured to operate the fixing device to perform single-color printing at a time of heater activation to reduce efficiency of a printing operation. One would have been motivated to do so in order to avoid cumbersome control that controls unnoticeable level of image density (Sone [0161]).
Regarding claim 14, modified Kakutani teaches the image forming apparatus of claim 13, wherein the heating timing is a timing after a peak of the input voltage from a power supply (Kakutani [0043]).
Regarding claim 15, modified Kakutani teaches the image forming apparatus of claim 13, further comprising: a zero crossing detection circuit 303 configured to detect a zero crossing point of the input voltage (Kakutani [0032, 0037, 0040]).
Regarding claim 16, modified Kakutani teaches the image forming apparatus of claim 15, wherein the heating timing is based on the zero crossing point detected by the zero crossing detection circuit (Kakutani [0042]).
Regarding claim 18, modified Kakutani teaches the image forming apparatus of claim 13, wherein the voltage measuring device 301 is configured to measure the input voltage at a predetermined timing (Kakutani [0037, 0049, 0052, 0057]).
Regarding claim 19, modified Kakutani teaches the image forming apparatus of claim 18, wherein the predetermined timing is at least one of a time at which power of the image forming apparatus is turned on or a time at which an elapsed time is reached (Kakutani [0037, 0049, 0052, 0057]).
Regarding claim 20, modified Kakutani teaches the image forming apparatus of claim 13, but fails to teach wherein the controller is further configured to display a notification indicating single-color printing.
Sone teaches wherein the controller is further configured to display a notification indicating single-color printing ([0147]).
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 Kakutani such that the controller is further configured to display a notification indicating single-color printing, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. In this case, the predictable results would be effectively informing a user of a change in printing conditions.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kakutani (US 2020/0310326) in view of Sone (US 2018/0150010) as applied to claim 15, and further in view of Okada (US 2004/0022550).
Regarding outstanding claim 17, modified Kakutani teaches the image forming apparatus of claim 15, but fails to teach wherein the controller is further configured to deactivate the heater before the zero crossing point.
Okada teaches an image forming apparatus (Fig. 1 [0043]) having a controller (DSP 27; Fig. 4 [0057-0058]) configured to deactivate a heater 13/31 (Fig. 4 [0060]) before a zero crossing point (“the turn-off-timing in software is set to 100 µsec before the zero crossing point”; [0073]).
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 to include the controller configured to deactivate the heater before the zero crossing point. One would have been motivated to do so in order to execute turning on/off of the heater securely and precisely and execute the phase control based on a more accurate zero crossing point without being influenced by the noise or the power source frequency (Okada [0089]).
Claim(s) 7-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kakutani (US 2020/0310326) in view of Sakai (US 2004/0131374).
Regarding claim 7, Kakutani discloses an image forming apparatus comprising:
a voltage measuring device 301 configured to measure an input voltage (Fig. 2, [0049, 0052]);
a fixing device 150 comprising a heater 210 configured to heat a sheet (Figs. 1-2, [0024, 0031]); and
a controller 201 (Fig. 2) configured to:
determine a heating timing of the heater ([0038]) when the input voltage is equal to or greater than a threshold (as the controller 201 switches control methods based on the effective value of the AC voltage in accordance with regional differences, e.g., 100 V vs 230 V, at least one threshold must exist which serves as the basis for changing the heating timing; [0040-0041]), and
activate the heater at the determined heating timing ([0051-0057]).
Kakutani fails to disclose the controller configured to operate the fixing device to perform a printing operation with a specific sheet type at a time of heater activation to reduce efficiency of the printing operation.
Sakai teaches an image forming apparatus (Fig. 2) comprising a controller 16 (Fig. 1) configured to operate a fixing device (Fig. 1 [0045]) to perform a printing operation with a specific sheet type (basis weight, thickness, roughness) at a time of heater activation to reduce efficiency of the printing operation (Fig. 3 [013, 0078]; the basis weight of a sheet determines heat transfer efficiency, and the apparatus will reduce efficiency when printing on different types of paper when adjusting a sheet interval).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure the controller to operate the fixing device to perform a printing operation with a specific sheet type at a time of heater activation to reduce efficiency of the printing operation. One would have been motivated to make this modification in order to secure a stable fixing property and provide a fixing apparatus which is stable in curling, stacking performance, etc. and gives priority to the print quality (Sakai [0078]).
Regarding claim 8, modified Kakutani teaches the image forming apparatus of claim 7, wherein the heating timing is a timing after a peak of the input voltage from a power supply (Kakutani [0043]).
Regarding claim 9, modified Kakutani teaches the image forming apparatus of claim 7, further comprising: a zero crossing detection circuit 303 configured to detect a zero crossing point of the input voltage (Kakutani [0032, 0037, 0040]).
Regarding claim 10, modified Kakutani teaches the image forming apparatus of claim 9, wherein the heating timing is based on the zero crossing point detected by the zero crossing detection circuit (Kakutani [0042]).
Regarding claim 11, modified Kakutani teaches the image forming apparatus of claim 7, wherein the voltage measuring device 301 is configured to measure the input voltage at a predetermined timing (Kakutani [0037, 0049, 0052, 0057]).
Regarding claim 12, modified Kakutani teaches the image forming apparatus of claim 11, wherein the predetermined timing is at least one of a time at which power of the image forming apparatus is turned on or a time at which an elapsed time is reached (Kakutani [0037, 0049, 0052, 0057]).
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