Method of adjusting a plurality of optical elements associated with a ROS

The present disclosure is directed to a printing system ROS to form images on a photoreceptor surface. More particularly, the present disclosure is directed to a compensation process associated with an optical system associated with the ROS.

In many optical systems associated with printing ROS, there are numerous manufacturing tolerances that must be accommodated for in the final design. For example, a typical ROS includes 150+ different tolerances associated with a plurality of optical elements and 60+ performance metrics.

This disclosure provides a method of adjusting a plurality of optical elements associated with a printing system ROS as a compensation strategy. This disclosure also provides an adjustment process where the number of adjustors is minimized.

“CODE V” Introductory User's Guide by Optical Research Associates, Pasadena, Calif., copyright May 2008, 284 pages.

In one embodiment of this disclosure, described is a method of adjusting a plurality of optical elements associated with a printing system ROS associated with a photoreceptor comprising a) creating a computer model of the printing system ROS, the computer model including a plurality of input parameters associated with the optical and mechanical tolerances of the optical elements, and a plurality of output parameters associated with the performance of a beam associated with the printing system ROS; b) performing a sensitivity analysis of the computer model to determine an effect of the plurality of input parameters on each respective output parameter; c) performing a Monte Carlo simulation of the printing system ROS using the computer model to determine an alignment sequence of optical elements associated with selected input parameters to optimize the plurality of output parameters associated with the performance of the printing system ROS, wherein the selected input parameters are selected as a function of maximum output parameter effect and one or more other constraints associated with the printing system ROS; and d) aligning the optical elements according to the alignment sequence to optimize the plurality of output parameters associated with the printing system ROS.

In another embodiment of this disclosure, described is a computer readable program product, storing instructions that when executed by a computer, causes the computer to execute the instructions to perform a method of adjusting a plurality of optical elements associated with a printing system ROS associated with a photoreceptor, the method comprising a) creating a computer model of the printing system ROS, the computer model including a plurality of input parameters associated with the optical and mechanical tolerances of the optical elements, and a plurality of output parameters associated with the performance of a beam associated with the printing system ROS; b) performing a sensitivity analysis of the computer model to determine an effect of the plurality of input parameters on each respective output parameter, c) performing a Monte Carlo simulation of the printing system ROS using the computer model to determine an alignment sequence of optical elements associated with selected input parameters to optimize the plurality of output parameters associated with the performance of the printing system ROS, wherein the selected input parameters are selected as a function of maximum output parameter effect and one or more other constraints associated with the printing system ROS; and d) aligning the optical elements according to the alignment sequence to optimize the plurality of output parameters associated with the printing system ROS.

FIG. 1 shows an exemplary printing apparatus according to this disclosure.

FIG. 2 shows an exemplary ROS and associated optical elements according to this disclosure.

This disclosure provides an optimal compensation strategy for a ROS based image marking system. In any optical system there are numerous manufacturing tolerances that must be accommodated in any final design. For a typical ROS, there are 150+ different tolerances, and 60+ performance metrics. Via Monte Carlo simulation, a set of tolerances need to be developed which are capable of being met by a supplier, and a set of adjustments (with finite precision), such that all performance metrics are met at a specified Cpk level (e.g., 1.33). There are tradeoffs between the magnitude of the tolerances, the number and adjustability of the compensators, and the performance metric spec levels. Note that the compensation strategy development procedure is widely applicable to many different ROS systems, but will be described with reference to five particular compensators specific to an exemplary ROS with performance metric specs as described below. Note that minimization of adjusters reduces UMC and alignment labor costs.

There are 150+ optical/mechanical errors (tolerances) and 65 well-defined output parameters with expected performance limits associated with the exemplary VCSEL ROS system described heretofore. The system is composed of 19 optical components, 14 of which are available for actuation. Each component has six positional degree of freedoms, i.e. translation and tilt in three dimensions, as well as many other constructional and optical degrees of freedom (such as index of refraction, x and y radii of curvature, thickness). This disclosure provides a VCSEL ROS system with a minimum number of adjustors while maintaining the Cpk of the output parameters above 1.33.

A VCSEL ROS system with a minimum number of adjustors is disclosed. A minimum number of 5 adjustors are needed to maintain the Cpk of all 65 output parameters above 1.33. Major contributors for each output parameters are identified using the sensitivity analysis tool provided by CODE V. As a compensation strategy, one can reduce the amount of variation in one or more contributors and/or use designated adjustors to reduce the variation in the outputs. The adjustor is selected by the amount of impact it incurs on the output and the availability in the mechanical design. A system model is created in CODE V and the latitude of the system is investigated with Monte Carlo simulations.

With reference to FIG. 1 , a VCSEL ROS system with a minimum number of 5 adjustors is shown. Each component in FIG. 1 has optical tolerances (fringe, thickness, refractive index, surface offset, and wedge), as well as mechanical tolerances (X-, Y-, Z-translations and tilts). Table 1, below, shows a sample of the tolerance types and values for Lens 2. Table 2 shows one exemplary example of a complete list of optical element tolerances associated with a VCSEL ROS system. The tolerances are modeled as Gaussian-distributed with tolerance value at 2-sigma. The output parameters are bows, differential bows, lead edge registrations, skew, lateral registrations, swath magnifications, fast scan magnifications, scan nonlinearity, wobble, beam spacing, beam sizes, and spot sizes, along with output parameters and their tolerances. Table 3, below, shows a sample of output parameters and their tolerances. Table 4 shows a complete list of output parameters associated with a VCSEL ROS according to an exemplary embodiment of this disclosure.

A Monte Carlo simulation perturbs the nominal design with randomly-selected values for the optical and mechanical errors for each optical element with an underlying assumption of Gaussian distribution. If one wishes, the probability function can be replaced with any common distribution (uniform, gamma . . . ) or a custom distribution. The output parameters of each perturbed case are evaluated and recorded. Histograms of each output parameters are plotted, and the mean and standard deviations can be readily calculated. A Monte Carlo simulation of 200 perturbed systems are generally enough to produce a good estimate of the statistics. From a series of Monte Carlo simulations on a particular ROS system without any alignments, output parameters that are out of specs are shown to be swath magnifications, spot sizes at P/R plane, and beam sizes (clear aperture) at Lens 2, Polygon, and Mirror 6 locations.

A minimum number of 5 adjustors are identified to bring the output parameters within the spec limits, given the magnitudes of the other element tolerances. The process is facilitated by the sensitivity analysis in CODE V. It provides a first-order estimation of the impact of each DOF (degree of freedom) for each optical component on the output parameters. They are further confirmed by Monte Carlo simulations. With the alignment of the 5 adjustors, all output parameters now have Cpk's above 1.33. The alignment procedure is given as follows.

Collimator axial translation for spot sizes, VCSEL process-direction translation for reducing beam sizes at Lens 2 and Polygon by centering the beam at Mirror 2, Mirror 2 beta tilt for reducing beam sizes at Mirror 6 by centering the beam at Mirror 4, VCSEL gamma rotation for beam spacing uniformity, and Lens 1 axial translation for swath magnifications.

One can further decrease the number of adjustors at the expense of tighter tolerances, i.e. higher cost. Using tolerance reduction strategy, eliminated ARE alignments for fast scan magnification and lead edge registration by reducing the top 10 contributors by 25% and 50%, respectively. However, decreasing the number of the current adjustors is proven to be difficult from the manufacturability and cost standpoint. For instance, a preliminary sensitivity analysis and Monte Carlo simulation shows that reducing the top 15 contributors on swath magnification to 1/10th of their present values can only increase the swath magnification Cpk up to 1.01, leaving us with the other option, i.e., adjusting Lens 1. The tolerance types and values are shown in Table 5 below. Reducing the tolerance to such low values would be too difficult, if not impossible. One can reduce a larger set of tolerances to relieve the tight specs but higher cost associated with that needs to be added into considerations.

Described hereto is a VCSEL ROS system with a minimum number of adjustors. A total number of 5 adjustors are implemented to maintain the Cpk's of 65 output parameters above 1.33.

Some benefits associated with the disclosed process are keeping the number of adjustors at minimum means less cost on mechanical designing and tooling, and better efficiency in alignment process, while the system is still robust to the optical and mechanical errors.

FIG. 1 is a simplified elevational view of basic elements of an image printing system, showing a context of the present disclosure. Specifically, there is shown an “image-on-image” xerographic color printer, in which successive primary-color images are accumulated on an image bearing surface (e.g., photoreceptor belt), and the accumulated superimposed images are in one step directly transferred to an output sheet as a full-color image. It is appreciated that any image printing system, such as monochrome machines using any technology, machines which print on photosensitive substrates, xerographic machines with multiple photoreceptors, or ink-jet-based machines, can beneficially utilize the present disclosure as well.

Specifically, the FIG. 1 embodiment includes an image bearing surface 410 (e.g., belt photoreceptor), along which are disposed a series of stations, as is generally familiar in the art of xerography, one set for each primary color to be printed. For instance, to place a cyan color separation image on the image bearing surface 410 , there is used a charge corotron 412 C, an imaging laser 414 C, and a development unit 416 C. For successive color separations, there is provided equivalent elements 412 M, 414 M, 416 M (for magenta), 412 Y, 414 Y, 416 Y (for yellow), and 412 K, 414 K, 416 K (for black). The successive color separations are built up in a superimposed manner on the surface of the image bearing surface 425 , and then the combined full-color image is transferred at transfer station 420 to an output sheet. The output sheet is then run through a fuser 430 , as is familiar in xerography. Printing process may be controlled, for example, by a print controller 410 .

As is familiar in the art of “laser printing,” by coordinating the modulation of the various lasers with the motion of the image bearing surface 425 and other hardware (such as rotating mirrors, etc., not shown), the lasers discharge areas on the image bearing surface 425 to create the desired printing, particularly after these areas are developed by their respective development units 416 C, 416 M, 416 Y, 416 K.

FIG. 2 represents a top view of a multiple-beam laser scanner system according to the concepts of the present application. Initially, an independently addressable laser array 12 , which includes a plurality of beam-generating elements, emits beams 14 , defined as a group, to pass through a collimator lens 16 , an aperture stop 18 , and a first cylinder lens 20 . Beams 14 impinge on a first fold mirror 22 , causing beams 14 to move through a second cylinder lens 24 to a second fold mirror 26 . Next, beams 14 passes through cylinder lens group 28 , consisting of two separate cylinder lenses, and onto a facet of rotating polygon mirror 30 . Rotation of the polygon mirror causes the beams 14 to be scanned through a range of angles and positions, including side scan positions 34 and 36 and center position 50 . The scanned beams 14 pass through a first scan lens 32 and a second scan lens 38 and then bounce between cylinder mirrors 40 , 42 , 44 and fold mirror 45 , and through a portion of output window 46 , to a recording medium 48 , which in one embodiment may be a photoreceptor or xerographic drum.

The beams 14 are scanned in scan direction 52 , which is the “fast scan” direction. Beams 14 are reflected to impinge on and illuminate a plurality of contiguous facets of polygon mirror 30 . The rotational axis of polygon mirror 30 is orthogonal to the plane in which light beams 14 travel. With rotation of the polygon mirror 30 , beams are reflected from illuminated facets and turned through a scan angle for flying spot scanning. Alternatively, flying spot scanning could be provided by any other suitable device, such as a holographic scanner incorporating linear diffraction gratings. Beams 14 are modulated in conformance with information contained in a video signal input. The output intensity profile of each laser beam in the array is Gaussian or near-Gaussian. The beams 14 generate more than a single imaging spot on the recording medium, where the spots are generated in conformance with signal image information.

The details of FIG. 2 are intended to illustrate one embodiment of a multiple-beam laser scanner system which incorporates concepts of the present application. However, it is to be understood such concepts may also be used in multiple-beam scanner systems of other designs. Further, while the present concepts maybe applied to systems with as few as two beams, presently multiple-beam systems have been developed which include 31 or 32 beams, and the present concepts are applicable to these systems.

It will be appreciated that variants of the above-disclosed and other features and functions, or alternatives thereof, may be combined into many other different systems or applications. Various presently unforeseen or unanticipated alternatives, modifications, variations or improvements therein may be subsequently made by those skilled in the art which are also intended to be encompassed by the following claims.