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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
2. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: 1) drive source in claims 1 and 8; 2) conveyance portion in claims 1, 5, 8, 14 and 15; and 3) transmission mechanism in claims 1 and 5.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 3 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 3 recites “the control portion is configured to determine the timing at which the control signal is issued, such that a timing at which the sheet passes a predetermined position downstream of the sheet detection portion in a sheet conveyance direction becomes closer to a predetermined timing regardless of individual difference between a plurality of individual products of the sheet conveyance apparatus”. (emphasis added). It is unclear what is meant by individual products of the sheet conveyance apparatus. Further clarification is needed to understand this recitation.
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, 4-5, 7-9 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0278775 (Oizumi et al.) (hereinafter “Oizumi”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0072874 (Calapis et al.) (hereinafter “Calapis”).
Regarding claim 1, Figs. 1-11 of Oizumi show a sheet conveyance apparatus (Fig. 1) comprising:
a drive source (34) configured to generate a driving force;
a conveyance portion (including 24 and 28) configured to be driven by the driving force to convey a sheet;
a transmission mechanism (Fig. 3) configured to switch between a first state (Fig. 5) in which the transmission mechanism (Fig. 3) transmits the driving force to the conveyance portion (including 24 and 28) at a first transmission ratio, and a second state (Fig. 6) in which the transmission mechanism (Fig. 3) transmits the driving force to the conveyance portion (including 24 and 28) at a second transmission ratio;
a load detection portion (58) configured to detect a load acting on the drive source (34); and
a control portion (56) configured to control the drive source (34) and the transmission mechanism (Fig. 3) and execute a conveyance operation in which the conveyance portion (including 24 and 28) conveys the sheet,
wherein the control portion (56) is configured to change, on a basis of a detection result of the load detection portion (58), a timing in the conveyance operation at which a control signal for switching the transmission mechanism (Fig. 3) from the first state (Fig. 5) to the second state (Fig. 6) is issued (See numbered paragraph [0083] – [0085]), the timing being changed in accordance with a delay time from when the control signal is issued to when change in the load corresponding to the switching of the transmission mechanism from the first state (Fig. 5) to the second state (Fig. 6) appears. See, e.g., numbered paragraphs [0097] – [0100]. Oizumi teaches most of the limitations of claim 1 including the transmission mechanism (Fig. 3) configured to switch between first and second states (Figs. 5 and 6, respectively) at first and second transmission ratios (i.e., different combinations of tooted gears engaged with one another), but Oizumi does not explicitly state that the second transmission ratio is different from the first transmission ratio, as claimed.
Calapis shows that it is well known in the art to operate a transmission mechanism (including 345, 312, 315, 325, 321 and 331 in Figs. 5A-5B), such that it switches between a first state (Fig. 5A) in which the transmission mechanism (including 345, 312, 315, 325, 321 and 331) transmits a driving force to a conveyance portion (including 351 and 211) at a first transmission ratio, and a second state (Fig. 5B) in which the transmission mechanism (including 345, 312, 315, 325, 321 and 331) transmits the driving force to the conveyance portion (including 351 and 211) at a second transmission ratio. See, e.g., numbered paragraph [0028] for change in gear ratio, for the purpose of changing the speed of elements of the conveyance portion (including 351 and 211). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the Oizumi apparatus with gears that have first and second transmission ratios that are different from one another, for the purpose of changing the speed of elements of the conveyance portion (including 24 and 28), as taught by Calapis.
Regarding claim 2, Figs. 1-11 of Oizumi show a sheet detection portion (64) configured to detect the sheet conveyed by the conveyance portion (including 24 and 28),
wherein the control portion (56) is configured to determine the timing in the conveyance operation at which the control signal is issued, on a basis of the delay time and a timing at which the sheet detection portion (64) has detected the sheet.
Regarding claim 4, Figs. 1-11 of Oizumi show that the conveyance portion includes a plurality of conveyance rollers (24 and 28) arranged along a conveyance path to an image forming portion (“printer” in numbered paragraph [0002] inherently has an image forming portion), and
wherein the control portion (56) is configured to determine the timing at which the control signal is issued, such that an interval between sheets passing through the image forming portion (“printer” in numbered paragraph [0002] inherently has an image forming portion) in a case where a plurality of sheets are conveyed one by one becomes closer to a predetermined interval.
Regarding claim 5, Figs. 1-11 of Oizumi show that a sheet conveyance speed of the conveyance portion (including 24 and 28) in a case where the transmission mechanism (Fig. 3) is in the first state (Fig. 5) is higher than the sheet conveyance speed of the conveyance portion in a case where the transmission mechanism is in the second state (Fig. 6). The conveyance speed in the negative conveyance direction during the first state (Fig. 5) is higher than any possible conveyance speed in the negative conveyance direction during the second state (Fig. 6). Conveyance during the second state is in the positive conveyance direction.
Regarding claim 7, as best understood, Figs. 1-11 of Oizumi show that the control portion (56) is configured to determine, on a basis of the delay time measured during the conveyance operation of a preceding sheet, the timing in the conveyance operation of a succeeding sheet at which the control signal is issued, the succeeding sheet being conveyed after the preceding sheet. Numbered paragraphs [0097] – [0100] explain the delay time based upon detection of the threshold value of the motor during conveyance of a preceding sheet, and numbered paragraphs [0012] - [0015] explain updating the threshold value for every conveyance or print job, e.g., during conveyance of a succeeding sheet.
Regarding claim 8, Figs. 1-11 of Oizumi show that the control portion (56) is configured to determine the timing in the conveyance operation at which the control signal is issued, on a basis of the delay time measured in a state in which the drive source (34) is caused to generate the driving force without the conveyance portion (including 24 and 28) conveying the sheet. See, e.g., numbered paragraphs [0097] - [0100].
Regarding claim 9, as best understood, Oizumi in view of Calapis teaches that the transmission mechanism (Fig. 3 of Oizumi) includes a plurality of drive transmission paths configured to transmit the driving force to the conveyance portion (including 24 and 28 of Oizumi) at transmission ratios different from each other, and
an actuator (38 or 54) configured to operate on a basis of a command from the control portion (56) and switch a path in which the driving force is transmitted among the plurality of drive transmission paths.
Regarding claim 13, Figs. 1-11 of Oizumi show an image forming apparatus comprising:
the sheet conveyance apparatus according to claim 1; and
an image forming portion (“printer” in numbered paragraph [0002] inherently has an image forming portion) configured to form an image on the sheet conveyed by the sheet conveyance apparatus (Fig. 1).
Allowable Subject Matter
5. Claims 14 and 15 are allowed. Claims 10-12 are 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. The status of claim 3 is unknown, because this claim is too unclear to determine allowability.
With regard to claims 14 and 15, the closest prior art of record is U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0269535 (Suzuki et al.) (hereinafter “Suzuki”). While Suzuki teaches a motor (M1); a conveyance portion (33); a transmission mechanism (including 85-87) including an electromagnetic clutch (86); a current detection circuit (including 104); a sensor (Se); and a control portion (100), and the control portion (100) is configured to issue a control signal for switching the transmission mechanism (including 85-87) from the first state to the second state before the conveyance operation is started. However, Suzuki does not teach or suggest that the control portion (100) is configured to change a timing of the control signal in the conveyance operation in accordance with a first response time from when the control signal is issued to when the current detected by the current detection circuit starts decreasing, such that (i) in a case where a length of the first response time is a first time length, the control signal is issued at a first timing after the sensor has issued the detection signal during the conveyance operation, and (ii) in a case where the length of the first response time is a second time length longer than the first time length, the control signal is issued at a second timing that is after the sensor has issued the detection signal during the conveyance operation and that is earlier than the first timing, as set forth in claim 14. Similarly, Suzuki does not teach or suggest that the control portion (100) is configured to change a timing of the control signal in the conveyance operation in accordance with a second response time from when the control signal is issued to when the current detected by the current detection circuit reaches a local minimum value after the current detected by the current detection circuit has started decreasing, such that (i) in a case where a length of the second response time is a third time length, the control signal is issued at a third timing after the sensor has issued the detection signal during the conveyance operation, and (ii) in a case where the length of the second response time is a fourth time length longer than the third time length, the control signal is issued at a fourth timing that is after the sensor has issued the detection signal during the conveyance operation and that is later than the third timing, as set forth in claim 15. Also, the Oizumi and Calapis references fail to teach any electromagnetic clutch at all.
Conclusion
6. 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