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 .
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.
2. Claims 1-2, 4-8, 10-14, 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 8,317,191 (deJong et al.) (hereinafter “deJong”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0318648 (Okuzawa) (hereinafter “Okuzawa”) (both references of record).
Regarding claim 20, Figs. 1 and 5 of deJong show an image forming apparatus (Fig. 1) comprising:
an image forming unit (102); and
a detection device (including 232 and 252 in Fig. 5) upstream of the image forming unit (102) comprising:
a first detection unit (including light sensitive pixels on elements 232 and 252 at locations 234 and 254 in Fig. 5) that detects a leading edge portion (234) and a trailing edge portion (254) of a medium (200) while the medium (200) is being transported; and
a second detection unit (including light sensitive pixels on elements 232 and 252 at locations 236 and 256 in Fig. 5) that detects both edge portions in a direction orthogonal (up or down) to a transporting direction (214) of the medium (200) while the medium (200) is being transported, wherein
a transport unit (including 106) transports the medium (200) at a constant transport speed (speed of feeder), and
the first detection unit (including light sensitive pixels on elements 232 and 252 at locations 234 and 254 in Fig. 5) senses the leading edge portion of the medium (200) while the medium is being transported by the transport unit (including 106) and the trailing edge portion (254) of the medium (200) while the medium (200) is being transported by the transport unit (including 106). deJong teaches most of the limitations of this claim including the transport unit (including 106) that transports the medium (200) at the constant transport speed, but deJong does not teach that the transport speed 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 deJong 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 light sensitive pixels on elements 232 and 252 at locations 234 and 254 in Fig. 5) 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 and 5 of deJong show that the second detection unit (including light sensitive pixels on elements 232 and 252 at locations 236 and 256 in Fig. 5) is divided into a section (light sensitive pixels in column 4, lines 48-56) that detects one edge portion (upper edge) of the medium (200) in a orthogonal direction (up or down) that is orthogonal to the transporting direction (214) of the medium (200) and a section (light sensitive pixels in column 4, lines 48-56) that detects another edge portion (lower edge) of the medium (200) in the orthogonal direction (up or down), the sections facing each other in the orthogonal direction. The direction 214 can change, as shown in Fig. 2 such that the sections face each other in the orthogonal direction, as claimed.
Regarding claim 2, Figs. 1-15 of deJong show a transport unit (including 202 and 204) that transports the medium (200); and
an abutting unit (108) that is disposed downstream of the transport unit (including 202 and 204) in the transporting direction (214) and against which a leading edge of the medium (200) transported by the transport unit (including 202 and 204) is abutted,
wherein the second detection unit (including light sensitive pixels on elements 232 and 252 at locations 236 and 256 in Fig. 5) is disposed downstream of the abutting unit (108) in the transporting direction. The second detection unit is downstream of abutting portion 108 when the medium is conveyed along duplex path 114 in Fig. 1.
Regarding claim 4, Figs. 1 and 5 of deJong show that the second detection unit (including light sensitive pixels on elements 232 and 252 at locations 236 and 256 in Fig. 5) is divided into a section (pixels in column 4, lines 48-56) that detects one edge portion (upper edge in Fig. 5) of the medium (200) in an orthogonal direction (up or down) that is orthogonal to the transporting direction (214) of the medium (200) and a section (pixels in column 4, lines 48-56) that detects another edge portion (lower edge in Fig. 5) of the medium (200) in the orthogonal direction (up or down), the sections (pixels in column 4, lines 48-56) facing each other in the orthogonal direction (up or down). The direction 214 can change, as shown in Fig. 2 such that the sections face each other in the orthogonal direction, as claimed.
Regarding claim 5, Figs. 1 and 5 of deJong show that at least one of the sections (pixels in column 4, lines 48-56) into which the second detection unit (including light sensitive pixels on elements 232 and 252 at locations 236 and 256 in Fig. 5) is divided in the orthogonal direction (up or down) detects an amount of displacement of the medium (200) in the orthogonal direction (up or down).
Regarding claim 6, Figs. 1 and 5 of deJong show that at least one of the sections (pixels in column 4, lines 48-56) into which the second detection unit (including light sensitive pixels on elements 232 and 252 at locations 236 and 256 in Fig. 5) is divided in the orthogonal direction (up or down) detects an amount of displacement of the medium (200) in the orthogonal direction (up or down).
Regarding claim 7, Figs. 1 and 5 of deJong show an abutting unit (108) against which a leading edge of the medium (200) is abutted, wherein the first detection unit (including light sensitive pixels on elements 232 and 252 at locations 234 and 254 in Fig. 5) is disposed upstream of the abutting unit (108) in the transporting direction (214).
Regarding claim 8, Figs. 1 and 5 of deJong show that the first detection unit (including light sensitive pixels on elements 232 and 252 at locations 234 and 254 in Fig. 5) is disposed upstream of the abutting unit (108) in the transporting direction (214).
Regarding claim 10, Figs. 1 and 5 of deJong show that the first detection unit (including light sensitive pixels on elements 232 and 252 at locations 234 and 254 in Fig. 5) is disposed upstream of the abutting unit (108) in the transporting direction (214).
Regarding claim 11, Figs. 1 and 5 of deJong show an abutting unit (108) against which a leading edge of the medium (200) is abutted, wherein the first detection unit (including light sensitive pixels on elements 232 and 252 at locations 234 and 254 in Fig. 5) is disposed upstream of the abutting unit (108) in the transporting direction (214).
Regarding claim 12, Figs. 1 and 5 of deJong show that the first detection unit (including light sensitive pixels on elements 232 and 252 at locations 234 and 254 in Fig. 5) is disposed upstream of the abutting unit (108) in the transporting direction (214).
Regarding claims 13-14 and 16, Figs. 1 and 5 of deJong show that the first detection unit (including light sensitive pixels on elements 232 and 252 at locations 234 and 254 in Fig. 5) includes:
a leading edge sensing unit (including light sensitive pixels on element 232 at location 234 in Fig. 5) that senses the leading edge portion of the medium (200) while the medium (200) is being transported; and
a trailing edge sensing unit (including light sensitive pixels on element 252 at location 254 in Fig. 5) that includes a plurality of sensing elements (light sensitive pixels in column 4, lines 48-56) arranged in the transporting direction (214) and that senses the trailing edge portion of the medium (200) while the medium (200) is being transported, a distance between one of the plurality of sensing elements (light sensitive pixels on element 252) that is disposed most upstream in the transporting direction (214) and the leading edge sensing unit (including light sensitive pixels on element 232 at location 234 in Fig. 5) being less than a transporting-direction dimension of the medium (200) when the medium (200) has a maximum size.
3. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over deJong in view of Okuzawa 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 deJong in view of Okuzawa 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
4. Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-8 of the response, filed 7/1/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-2, 4-8, 10-14, and 16-20 under 35U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, several new grounds of rejection are made of claims 1-2, 4-8, 10-14, 16-17 and 20.
Allowable Subject Matter
5. Claim 19 is 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.
Conclusion
6. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
7. 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
Prosecution Insights