Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
2. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/20/26 has been entered.
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.
3. Claim 18 is 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 18 ultimately depends from claim 20. Claim 20 recites “wherein a transport unit transports the medium at a constant transport speed that is lower than a transport speed at which the medium is transported in a region upstream of the first detection unit in the transporting direction, the first detection unit senses the leading edge portion of the medium while the medium is being transported by the transport unit and the trailing edge portion of the medium while the medium is being transported by the transport unit.” Claim 18 similarly recites “wherein the transport unit transports the medium at a constant transport speed that is lower than a transport speed at which the medium is transported in a region upstream of the leading edge sensing unit in the transporting direction, and wherein the leading edge sensing unit and the trailing edge sensing unit respectively sense the leading edge portion and the trailing edge portion of the medium while the medium is being transported by the transport unit.” Claim 18 recites limitations already previously recited in claim 20. This redundancy of these limitations makes claim 18 indefinite. Fore example, it is unclear how many different transport units are claimed in claim 18.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
4. Claims 1-2, 4-8, 10-12 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0292977 (Sato) (hereinafter “Sato”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0318648 (Okuzawa) (hereinafter “Okuzawa”) (all are references of record).
Regarding claim 20, Figs. 1-15 of Sato show a detection device comprising:
a first detection unit (including 61a and 61b) that detects a leading edge portion and a trailing edge portion of a medium (16) while the medium (16) is being transported; and
a second detection unit (including 62a and 62b) that detects both edge portions in a direction orthogonal (left or right) to a transporting direction (CONVEYANCE DIRECTION) of the medium (16) while the medium (16) is being transported, wherein
a transport unit (including 53) transports the medium (16) at a constant transport speed (Vp), and
the first detection unit (including 61a and 61b) senses the leading edge portion of the medium (16) while the medium is being transported by the transport unit (including 51-53) and the trailing edge portion of the medium (16) while the medium (16) is being transported by the transport unit (including 53). Sato teaches most of the limitations of this claim including the transport unit (including 53) that transports the medium (16) at the constant transport speed (Vp), but Sato does not teach that the constant transport speed (Vp) is lower than a transport speed at which the medium is transported in a region upstream of the first detection unit in the transporting direction, as claimed.
Okuzawa shows that it is well-known in the art to provide a detection device (Fig. 1) with a transport unit (including 70) that transports a medium at a constant transport speed that is lower than a transport speed at which a medium (P) is transported in a region upstream of a first detection unit (92) in a transporting direction (T), for the purpose of matching the speed of downstream operation on the sheet. See, e.g., numbered paragraphs [0123] – [0124]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the detection device of Sato with a transport unit that transports a medium at a constant transport speed that is lower than a transport speed at which the medium is transported in a region upstream of the first detection unit (including 61a and 61b of Sato) in the transporting direction, for the purpose of matching the speed of downstream operations on the sheet, as taught by Okuzawa.
Regarding claim 1, Figs. 1-15 of Sato show that the second detection unit (including 62a and 62b) is divided into a section (62a) that detects one edge portion (left edge) of the medium (16) in a orthogonal direction (left or right) that is orthogonal to the transporting direction (CONVEYANCE DIRECTION) of the medium (16) and a section (62b) that detects another edge portion (right edge) of the medium (16) in the orthogonal direction (left or right), the sections (62a and 62b) facing each other in the orthogonal direction.
Regarding claim 2, Figs. 1-15 of Sato show a transport unit (51) that transports the medium (16); and
an abutting unit (52) that is disposed downstream of the transport unit (51) in the transporting direction (CONVEYANCE DIRECTION) and against which a leading edge of the medium (16) transported by the transport unit (51) is abutted,
wherein the second detection unit (including 62a and 62b) is disposed downstream of the abutting unit (52) in the transporting direction (CONVEYANCE DIRECTION).
Regarding claim 4, Figs. 1-15 of Sato show that the second detection unit (including 62a and 62b) is divided into a section (62a) that detects one edge portion (left edge) of the medium (16) in an orthogonal direction (left or right) that is orthogonal to the transporting direction (CONVEYANCE DIRECTION) of the medium (16) and a section (62b) that detects another edge portion (right edge) of the medium (16) in the orthogonal direction (left or right), the sections (62a and 62b) facing each other in the orthogonal direction (left or right).
Regarding claim 5, Figs. 1-15 of Sato show that at least one (62a or 62b) of the sections (62a and 62b) into which the second detection unit (including 62a and 62b) is divided in the orthogonal direction (left or right) detects an amount of displacement of the medium (16) in the orthogonal direction (left or right).
Regarding claim 6, Figs. 1-15 of Sato show that at least one (62a or 62b) of the sections (62a and 62b) into which the second detection unit (including 62a and 62b) is divided in the orthogonal direction (left or right) detects an amount of displacement of the medium (16) in the orthogonal direction (left or right).
Regarding claim 7, Figs. 1-15 of Sato show an abutting unit (52) against which a leading edge of the medium (16) is abutted, wherein the first detection unit (including 61a and 61b) is disposed upstream of the abutting unit (52) in the transporting direction (CONVEYANCE DIRECTION).
Regarding claim 8, Figs. 1-15 of Sato show that the first detection unit (including 61a and 61b) is disposed upstream of the abutting unit (52) in the transporting direction (CONVEYANCE DIRECTION).
Regarding claim 10, Figs. 1-15 of Sato show that the first detection unit (including 61a and 61b) is disposed upstream of the abutting unit (52) in the transporting direction (CONVEYANCE DIRECTION).
Regarding claim 11, Figs. 1-15 of Sato show an abutting unit (52) against which a leading edge of the medium (16) is abutted, wherein the first detection unit (including 61a and 61b) is disposed upstream of the abutting unit (52) in the transporting direction (CONVEYANCE DIRECTION).
Regarding claim 12, Figs. 1-15 of Sato show that the first detection unit (including 61a and 61b) is disposed upstream of the abutting unit (52) in the transporting direction (CONVEYANCE DIRECTION).
5. Claims 13-14, 16 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato in view of Okuzawa as applied to claims 2,4 and 20 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 8,317,191 (deJong et al.) (hereinafter “deJong”). (all are references of record). With regard to claims 13-14 and 16, Sato shows that the first detection unit (including 61a and 61b) includes:
a leading edge sensing unit (61b) that senses the leading edge portion (unnumbered leading edge of element 16) of the medium (16) while the medium (16) is being transported; and a trailing edge sensing unit (61a) that includes a plurality of sensing elements (square elements) and that senses the trailing edge portion (unnumbered trailing end of element 16) of the medium (16) while the medium (16) is being transported, but Sato does not show that the sensing elements are arranged in the transporting direction and does not show that a distance between one of the plurality of sensing elements that is disposed most upstream in the transporting direction and the leading edge sensing unit is less than a transporting-direction dimension of the medium when the medium has a maximum size, as claimed.
deJong shows that it is well-known in the art to provide a detection device (Figs. 1 and 5) with a trailing edge sensing unit (252) that includes a plurality of sensing elements (light sensitive pixels in lines 48-50 in column 4) arranged in a transporting direction (214) and that senses the trailing edge portion (254) of a medium (200) while the medium (200) is being transported, and a distance between one of the plurality of sensing elements (light sensitive pixels of element 252) that is disposed most upstream in the transporting direction (214) and a leading edge sensing unit (including 232) is less than a transporting-direction dimension of the medium (200) when the medium (200) has a maximum size. Because both deJong and Sato teach sensor arrangements for detecting leading and trailing edges of conveyed sheets, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the sensor
arrangement of deJong for the sensor arrangement of Sato to achieve the predictable result of detecting leading and trailing edges of conveyed sheets. All of the limitations of claims 13-14 and 16 are met by the cited combination of references.
Regarding claim 18, Sato teaches most of the limitations of this claim including the transport unit (including 51) that transports the medium (16) at the constant transport speed (Vp) and the leading edge sensing unit (including 61a and 61b) and he trailing edge sensing unit respectively sense the leading edge portion and the trailing edge portion of the medium (16) while the medium is being transported by the transport unit (including 53), but Sato does not teach that the constant transport speed (Vp) is lower than a transport speed at which the medium is transported in a region upstream of the leading edge sensing unit in the transporting direction, as claimed.
Fig. 1 of Okuzawa shows that it is well-known in the art to provide a detection device (Fig. 1) with a transport unit (including 70) that transports a medium at a constant transport speed that is lower than a transport speed at which a medium (P) is transported in a region upstream of a first detection unit (92) in a transporting direction (T), for the purpose of matching the speed of downstream operation on the sheet. See, e.g., numbered paragraphs [0123] – [0124]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the detection device of Sato with a transport unit that transports a medium at a constant transport speed that is lower than a transport speed at which the medium is transported in a region upstream of the leading edge sensing unit (including 61a and 61b of Sato) in the transporting direction, for the purpose of matching the speed of downstream operations on the sheet, as taught by Okuzawa.
Regarding claim 19, Figs. 1-15 of Sato show an upstream transport unit (including 11 and 7) that is disposed upstream of the transport unit (53) in the transporting direction (CONVEYANCE DIRECTION) and that is movable between a nipping position at which the upstream transport unit (including 11 and 7) nips the medium and a separated position (numbered paragraph [0032]) at which the upstream transport unit (including 11 and 7) is separated from the medium, the upstream transport unit (including 11 and 7) transporting the medium while the upstream transport unit (including 11 and 7) is at the nipping position, wherein the leading edge sensing unit (61b) and the trailing edge sensing unit respectively sense the leading edge portion and the trailing edge portion of the medium (16) while the upstream transport unit (including 11 and 7) is at the separated position (numbered paragraph [0032]).
6. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato in view of Okuzawa and deJong as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Japanese Publication No. 2-249837 (hereinafter "JP'837"). With regard to claim 17, deJong shows that the first detection unit can have different combinations of pairs sensing units (e.g., 222 and 232, 242 and 232 or 252 and 232 and explains that at least two sensors are utilized on each side of the sheet, but deJong does not explicitly show that the first detection unit includes two pairs of sensing units, as claimed.
JP'837 shows that it is well-known in the art to provide detection device (Fig. 1) with a first detection unit including two pairs of sensing units (15 and 17 & 16 and 18), each pair (15 and 17 or 16 and 18) including a leading edge sensing unit (15 or 16) and a trailing edge sensing unit (17 or 18, respectively) that overlap when viewed in a transporting direction. The English abstract explains that this sensor arrangement reduces misjudgment of skew due to a bent sheet. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the apparatus of Sato in view of Okuzawa and deJong with a first detection unit that has two pairs of sensing units, for the purpose of reducing misjudgment of skew due to a bent sheet, as taught by JP’837.
Response to Arguments
7. Applicant’s arguments, see page 7 of the response, filed 2/20/26, with respect to the rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and the rejections of claims 2, 4-8, 10-12 and 20 under 35U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, several new grounds of rejection are made of claims 1-2, 4-8, 10-14, and 16-20.
Conclusion
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS A MORRISON whose telephone number is (571)272-7221. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am - 5pm.
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, Mike McCullough can be reached at 571-272-7805. 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.
/THOMAS A MORRISON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3653